The Talmud (/ˈtɑːlmʊd, -məd, ˈtæl-/; Hebrew: תַּלְמוּד‬ talmūd "instruction, learning", from a rootLMD "teach, study") is a central text of Rabbinic Judaism. The term "Talmud" normally refers to the collection of writings named specifically the Babylonian Talmud(Talmud Bavli), although there is also an earlier collection known as the Jerusalem Talmud (Talmud Yerushalmi).[1] When referring to the post-biblical periods during which the Talmud was being compiled, those of the Talmudic academies and the Babylonian exilarchate, Jewish sources used the term "Babylonia" long after its geopolitical obsolescence.[2]

It may also traditionally be called Shas (ש״ס‬), a Hebrew abbreviation of shisha sedarim, or the "six orders" of the Mishnah. The Talmud has two components; the Mishnah (Hebrew: משנה, c. year 200 CE), a written compendium of Rabbinic Judaism's Oral Torah; and the Gemara (circa year 500), an elucidation of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings that often ventures onto other subjects and expounds broadly on the Hebrew Bible. "Talmud" translates literally as "instruction" in Hebrew, and the term may refer to either the Gemara alone, or the Mishnah and Gemara together.

The entire Talmud consists of 63 tractates, and in standard print is over 6,200 pages long, it is written in Tannaitic Hebrew and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and contains the teachings and opinions of thousands of rabbis (dating from before the Common Era through to the fifth century) on a variety of subjects, including Halakha (law), Jewish ethics, philosophy, customs, history, lore and many other topics. The Talmud is the basis for all codes of Jewish law, and is widely quoted in rabbinic literature.

An early printing of the Talmud (Ta'anit 9b); with commentary by Rashi

The first page of the Vilna Edition of the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Berachot, folio 2a

Originally, Jewish scholarship was oral. Rabbis expounded and debated the Torah (the written Torah expressed in the Hebrew Bible) and discussed the Tanakh without the benefit of written works (other than the Biblical books themselves), though some may have made private notes (megillot setarim), for example of court decisions. This situation changed drastically, mainly as the result of the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth and the Second Temple in the year 70 and the consequent upheaval of Jewish social and legal norms, as the Rabbis were required to face a new reality—mainly Judaism without a Temple (to serve as the center of teaching and study) and Judea without at least partial autonomy—there was a flurry of legal discourse and the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained. It is during this period that rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing,[3][4] the earliest recorded oral Torah may have been of the midrashic form, in which halakhic discussion is structured as exegetical commentary on the Pentateuch. But an alternative form, organized by subject matter instead of by biblical verse, became dominant around the year 200, when Rabbi Judah the Prince redacted the Mishnah (משנה‬).[citation needed]

The Oral Torah was far from monolithic; rather, it varied among various schools. The most famous two were the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel; in general, all valid opinions, even the non-normative ones, were recorded in the Talmud.[citation needed]

The oldest full manuscript of the Talmud, known as the Munich Talmud (Cod.hebr. 95), dates from 1342 and is available online.

The structure of the Talmud follows that of the Mishnah, in which six orders (sedarim; singular: seder) of general subject matter are divided into 60 or 63 tractates (masekhtot; singular: masekhet) of more focused subject compilations, though not all tractates have Gemara. Each tractate is divided into chapters (perakim; singular: perek), 517 in total, that are both numbered according to the Hebrew alphabet and given names, usually using the first one or two words in the first mishnah. A perek may continue over several (up to tens of) pages,[5] each perek will contain several mishnayot[6] with their accompanying exchanges that form the "building-blocks" of the Gemara; the name for a passage of gemara is a sugya (סוגיא‬; plural sugyot). A sugya, including baraita or tosefta, will typically comprise a detailed proof-based elaboration of a Mishnaic statement, whether halakhic or aggadic. A sugya may, and often does, range widely off the subject of the mishnah, the sugya is not punctuated in the conventional sense used in the English language, but by using specific expressions that help to divide the sugya into components, usually including a statement, a question on the statement, an answer, a proof for the answer or a refutation of the answer with its own proof.[citation needed]

In a given sugya, scriptural, Tannaic and Amoraic statements are cited to support the various opinions. In so doing, the Gemara will highlight semantic disagreements between Tannaim and Amoraim (often ascribing a view to an earlier authority as to how he may have answered a question), and compare the Mishnaic views with passages from the Baraita. Rarely are debates formally closed; in some instances, the final word determines the practical law, but in many instances the issue is left unresolved. There is a whole literature on the procedural principles to be used in settling the practical law when disagreements exist: see under #Logic and methodology below.

The Mishnah is a compilation of legal opinions and debates. Statements in the Mishnah are typically terse, recording brief opinions of the rabbis debating a subject; or recording only an unattributed ruling, apparently representing a consensus view. The rabbis recorded in the Mishnah are known as the Tannaim.[citation needed]

Since it sequences its laws by subject matter instead of by biblical context, the Mishnah discusses individual subjects more thoroughly than the Midrash, and it includes a much broader selection of halakhic subjects than the Midrash, the Mishnah's topical organization thus became the framework of the Talmud as a whole. But not every tractate in the Mishnah has a corresponding Gemara. Also, the order of the tractates in the Talmud differs in some cases from that in the Mishnah.

In addition to the Mishnah, other tannaitic teachings were current at about the same time or shortly thereafter, the Gemara frequently refers to these tannaitic statements in order to compare them to those contained in the Mishnah and to support or refute the propositions of the Amoraim. All such non-Mishnaic tannaitic sources are termed baraitot (lit. outside material, "works external to the Mishnah"; sing. baraitaברייתא‬).

In the three centuries following the redaction of the Mishnah, rabbis in Israel and Babylonia analyzed, debated, and discussed that work, these discussions form the Gemara (גמרא‬). Gemara means “completion” (from the Hebrewgamarגמר‬: "to complete") or "learning" (from the Aramaic: "study"). The Gemara mainly focuses on elucidating and elaborating the opinions of the Tannaim, the rabbis of the Gemara are known as Amoraim (sing. Amoraאמורא‬).[citation needed]

Much of the Gemara consists of legal analysis, the starting point for the analysis is usually a legal statement found in a Mishnah. The statement is then analyzed and compared with other statements used in different approaches to Biblical exegesis in rabbinic Judaism (or - simpler - interpretation of text in Torah study) exchanges between two (frequently anonymous and sometimes metaphorical) disputants, termed the makshan (questioner) and tartzan (answerer). Another important function of Gemara is to identify the correct Biblical basis for a given law presented in the Mishnah and the logical process connecting one with the other: this activity was known as talmud long before the existence of the "Talmud" as a text.[7]

The Talmud is a wide-ranging document that touches on a great many subjects. Traditionally Talmudic statements are classified into two broad categories, halakhic and aggadic statements. Halakhic statements directly relate to questions of Jewish law and practice (halakha). Aggadic statements are not legally related, but rather are exegetical, homiletical, ethical, or historical in nature.

The process of "Gemara" proceeded in what were then the two major centers of Jewish scholarship, Galilee and Babylonia. Correspondingly, two bodies of analysis developed, and two works of Talmud were created, the older compilation is called the Jerusalem Talmud or the Talmud Yerushalmi. It was compiled in the 4th century in Galilee, the Babylonian Talmud was compiled about the year 500, although it continued to be edited later. The word "Talmud", when used without qualification, usually refers to the Babylonian Talmud.

While the editors of Jerusalem Talmud and Babylonian Talmud each mention the other community, most scholars believe these documents were written independently; Louis Jacobs writes, "If the editors of either had had access to an actual text of the other, it is inconceivable that they would not have mentioned this. Here the argument from silence is very convincing."[8]

This Talmud is a synopsis of the analysis of the Mishnah that was developed over the course of nearly 200 years by the Academies in Galilee (principally those of Tiberias and Caesarea.) Because of their location, the sages of these Academies devoted considerable attention to analysis of the agricultural laws of the Land of Israel. Traditionally, this Talmud was thought to have been redacted in about the year 350 by Rav Muna and Rav Yossi in the Land of Israel, it is traditionally known as the Talmud Yerushalmi ("Jerusalem Talmud"), but the name is a misnomer, as it was not prepared in Jerusalem. It has more accurately been called "The Talmud of the Land of Israel".[10]

Its final redaction probably belongs to the end of the 4th century, but the individual scholars who brought it to its present form cannot be fixed with assurance. By this time Christianity had become the state religion of the Roman Empire and Jerusalem the holy city of Christendom. In 325, Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor, said "let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd."[11] This policy made a Jew an outcast and pauper, the compilers of the Jerusalem Talmud consequently lacked the time to produce a work of the quality they had intended. The text is evidently incomplete and is not easy to follow.

Despite its incomplete state, the Jerusalem Talmud remains an indispensable source of knowledge of the development of the Jewish Law in the Holy Land, it was also an important resource in the study of the Babylonian Talmud by the Kairouan school of Chananel ben Chushiel and Nissim ben Jacob, with the result that opinions ultimately based on the Jerusalem Talmud found their way into both the Tosafot and the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides.

Following the formation of the modern state of Israel there is some interest in restoring Eretz Yisrael traditions, for example, Rabbi David Bar-Hayim of the Makhon Shilo institute has issued a siddur reflecting Eretz Yisrael practice as found in the Jerusalem Talmud and other sources.

The Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Bavli) consists of documents compiled over the period of Late Antiquity (3rd to 5th centuries).[12] During this time the most important of the Jewish centres in Mesopotamia, a region called "Babylonia" in Jewish sources and later known as Iraq, were Nehardea, Nisibis (modern Nusaybin), Mahoza (al-Mada'in, just to the south of what is now Baghdad), Pumbedita (near present-day al Anbar Governorate), and the Sura Academy, probably located about 60 km south of Baghdad.[13]

The Babylonian Talmud comprises the Mishnah and the Babylonian Gemara, the latter representing the culmination of more than 300 years of analysis of the Mishnah in the Talmudic Academies in Babylonia. The foundations of this process of analysis were laid by Abba Arika (175–247 CE), a disciple of Judah the Prince. Tradition ascribes the compilation of the Babylonian Talmud in its present form to two Babylonian sages, Rav Ashi and Ravina II.[14] Rav Ashi was president of the Sura Academy from 375-427, the work begun by Rav Ashi was completed by Ravina, who is traditionally regarded as the final Amoraic expounder. Accordingly, traditionalists argue that Ravina’s death in 475 CE[15] is the latest possible date for the completion of the redaction of the Talmud. However, even on the most traditional view a few passages are regarded as the work of a group of rabbis who edited the Talmud after the end of the Amoraic period , known as the Savoraim or Rabbanan Savora'e (meaning "reasoners" or "considerers").

The question as to when the Gemara was finally put into its present form is not settled among modern scholars. Some, like Louis Jacobs, argue that the main body of the Gemara is not simple reportage of conversations, as it purports to be, but a highly elaborate structure contrived by the Savoraim (roughly 500–650 CE), who must therefore be regarded as the real authors, on this view the text did not reach its final form until around 700. Some modern scholars use the term Stammaim (from the Hebrew Stam, meaning "closed", "vague" or "unattributed") for the authors of unattributed statements in the Gemara. (See eras within Jewish law.)

There are significant differences between the two Talmud compilations, the language of the Jerusalem Talmud is a western Aramaic dialect, which differs from the form of Aramaic in the Babylonian Talmud. The Talmud Yerushalmi is often fragmentary and difficult to read, even for experienced Talmudists, the redaction of the Talmud Bavli, on the other hand, is more careful and precise. The law as laid down in the two compilations is basically similar, except in emphasis and in minor details, the Jerusalem Talmud has not received much attention from commentators, and such traditional commentaries as exist are mostly concerned with comparing its teachings to those of the Talmud Bavli.

Neither the Jerusalem nor the Babylonian Talmud covers the entire Mishnah: for example, a Babylonian Gemara exists only for 37 out of the 63 tractates of the Mishnah; in particular:

The Jerusalem Talmud covers all the tractates of Zeraim, while the Babylonian Talmud covers only tractate Berachot. The reason might be that most laws from the Orders Zeraim (agricultural laws limited to the land of Israel) had little practical relevance in Babylonia and were therefore not included,[16] the Jerusalem Talmud has a greater focus on the Land of Israel and the Torah's agricultural laws pertaining to the land because it was written in the Land of Israel where the laws applied.

The Jerusalem Talmud does not cover the Mishnaic order of Kodashim, which deals with sacrificial rites and laws pertaining to the Temple, while the Babylonian Talmud does cover it. It is not clear why this is, as the laws were not directly applicable in either country following the Temple's 70 CE destruction.

In both Talmuds, only one tractate of Tohorot (ritual purity laws) is examined, that of the menstrual laws, Niddah.

The Babylonian Talmud records the opinions of the rabbis of the Ma'arava (the West, meaning Israel/Palestine) as well as of those of Babylonia, while the Jerusalem Talmud only seldom cites the Babylonian rabbis, the Babylonian version also contains the opinions of more generations because of its later date of completion. For both these reasons it is regarded as a more comprehensive collection of the opinions available, on the other hand, because of the centuries of redaction between the composition of the Jerusalem and the Babylonian Talmud, the opinions of early amoraim might be closer to their original form in the Jerusalem Talmud.

The influence of the Babylonian Talmud has been far greater than that of the Yerushalmi; in the main, this is because the influence and prestige of the Jewish community of Israel steadily declined in contrast with the Babylonian community in the years after the redaction of the Talmud and continuing until the Gaonic era. Furthermore, the editing of the Babylonian Talmud was superior to that of the Jerusalem version, making it more accessible and readily usable. According to Maimonides (whose life began almost a hundred years after the end of the Gaonic era), all Jewish communities during the Gaonic era formally accepted the Babylonian Talmud as binding upon themselves, and modern Jewish practice follows the Babylonian Talmud's conclusions on all areas in which the two Talmuds conflict.

Of the two main components of the Babylonian Talmud, the Mishnah is written in Mishnaic Hebrew. Within the Gemara, the quotations from the Mishnah and the Baraitas and verses of Tanakh quoted and embedded in the Gemara are in Hebrew. The rest of the Gemara, including the discussions of the Amoraim and the overall framework, is in a characteristic dialect of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic.[17] There are occasional quotations from older works in other dialects of Aramaic, such as Megillat Taanit. Overall, Hebrew constitutes somewhat less than half of the text of the Talmud.

This difference in language is due to the long time period elapsing between the two compilations, during the period of the Tannaim (rabbis cited in the Mishnah), a late form of Hebrew known as Rabbinic or Mishnaic Hebrew was still in use as a spoken vernacular among Jews in Judaea (alongside Greek and Aramaic), whereas during the period of the Amoraim (rabbis cited in the Gemara), which began around 200 CE, the spoken vernacular was almost exclusively Aramaic. Hebrew continued to be used for the writing of religious texts, poetry, and so forth.[18]

The first complete edition of the Babylonian Talmud was printed in Venice by Daniel Bomberg 1520–23[citation needed] with the support of Pope Leo X[19][20][21][22]. In addition to the Mishnah and Gemara, Bomberg's edition contained the commentaries of Rashi and Tosafot. Almost all printings since Bomberg have followed the same pagination. Bomberg's edition was considered relatively free of censorship.[23]

Following Ambrosius Frobenius's publication of most of the Talmud in installments in Basel, Immanuel Benveniste published the whole Talmud in installments in Amsterdam 1644–1648,[24] Though according to Raphael Rabbinovicz the Benveniste Talmud may have been based on the Lublin Talmud and included many of the censors' errors.[25]

The edition of the Talmud published by the Szapira brothers in Slavuta in 1795 is particularly prized by many rebbes of Hasidic Judaism; in 1835, after an acrimonious dispute with the Szapira family, a new edition of the Talmud was printed by Menachem Romm of Vilna. Known as the Vilna Edition Shas, this edition (and later ones printed by his widow and sons, the Romm publishing house) has been used in the production of more recent editions of Talmud Bavli.

A page number in the Vilna Talmud refers to a double-sided page, known as a daf, or folio in English; each daf has two amudim labeled א‬ and ב‬, sides A and B (Recto and Verso). The convention of referencing by daf is relatively recent and dates from the early Talmud printings of the 17th century, though the actual pagination goes back to the Bomberg edition. Earlier rabbinic literature generally refers to the tractate or chapters within a tractate (e.g. Berachot Chapter 1, ברכות פרק א׳‬), it sometimes also refers to the specific Mishnah in that chapter, where "Mishnah" is replaced with "Halakha", here meaning route, to "direct" the reader to the entry in the Gemara corresponding to that Mishna (e.g. Berachot Chapter 1 Halakha 1, ברכות פרק א׳ הלכה א׳‬ would refer to the first Mishnah of the first chapter in Tractate Berachot, and its corresponding entry in the Gemara). However, this form is nowadays more commonly (though not exclusively) used when referring to the Jerusalem Talmud. Nowadays, reference is usually made in format [Tractate daf a/b] (e.g. Berachot 23b, ברכות כג ב׳‬). Increasingly, the symbols "." and ":" are used to indicate Recto and Verso, respectively (thus, e.g. Berachot 32:, :ברכות כג‬, these references always refer to the pagination of the Vilna Talmud. In the Vilna edition of the Talmud there are 5,894 folio pages.

Lazarus Goldschmidt published an edition from the "uncensored text" of the Babylonian Talmud with a German translation in 9 vols. (commenced Leipzig, 1897–1909, edition completed, following emigration to England in 1933, by 1936).[26]

The text of the Vilna editions is considered by scholars not to be uniformly reliable, and there have been a number of attempts to collate textual variants.

In the early 20th century Nathan Rabinowitz published a series of volumes called Dikduke Soferim showing textual variants from early manuscripts and printings.

In 1960 work started on a new edition under the name of Gemara Shelemah (complete Gemara) under the editorship of Menachem Mendel Kasher: only the volume on the first part of tractate Pesachim appeared before the project was interrupted by his death. This edition contained a comprehensive set of textual variants and a few selected commentaries.

Some thirteen volumes have been published by the Institute for the Complete Israeli Talmud (a division of Yad Harav Herzog), on lines similar to Rabinowitz, containing the text and a comprehensive set of textual variants (from manuscripts, early prints and citations in secondary literature) but no commentaries.[27]

There have been critical editions of particular tractates (e.g. Henry Malter's edition of Ta'anit), but there is no modern critical edition of the whole Talmud. Modern editions such as those of the Oz ve-Hadar Institute correct misprints and restore passages that in earlier editions were modified or excised by censorship but do not attempt a comprehensive account of textual variants. One edition, by Rabbi Yosef Amar,[28] represents the Yemenite tradition, and takes the form of a photostatic reproduction of a Vilna-based print to which Yemenite vocalization and textual variants have been added by hand, together with printed introductory material. Collations of the Yemenite manuscripts of some tractates have been published by Columbia University.[29]

A number of editions have been aimed at bringing the Talmud to a wider audience, the main ones are as follows.

The Steinsaltz Talmud, which contains the text with punctuation, detailed explanations and translation. The Steinsaltz Edition is available in two formats: one with the traditional Vilna page and one without, it is available in modern Hebrew (first volume published 1969), English (first volume published 1989), French, Russian and other languages.

In May 2012, Koren Publishers Jerusalem launched the new Koren Talmud Bavli, a new version of the Steinsaltz Talmud which features a new, modern English translation and the commentary of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz. This edition won widespread praise as "America's most important Jewish event",[30] and for its "beautiful page" and "clean type",[31] it includes color photos and illustrations, and Steinsaltz's historical, biographical and linguistic notes in modern English translation. Opened as a Hebrew book, this edition preserves the traditional Vilna page layout and includes vowels and punctuation; the Rashi commentary too is punctuated. Opened as an English book, this edition breaks down the Talmud text into small, thematic units and features the supplementary notes along the margins.

The Schottenstein Talmud, published by ArtScroll: the first volume was published in 1990, and the series was completed in 2004. Each page is printed in the traditional Vilna format, and accompanied by an expanded paraphrase in English, in which the translation of the text is shown in bold and explanations are interspersed in normal type.

The Metivta edition, published by the Oz ve-Hadar Institute. This contains the full text in the same format as the Vilna-based editions, with a full explanation in modern Hebrew on facing pages as well as an improved version of the traditional commentaries.[32]

A previous project of the same kind, called Talmud El Am, "Talmud to the people", was published in Israel in the 1960s-80s. The Talmud El Am contains Hebrew text, English translation and commentary by Rabbi Dr A. Ehrman, with short 'realia', marginal notes, often illustrated, written by experts in the field for the whole of Tractate Berakhot, 2 chapters of Bava Mezia and the halachic section of Qiddushin, chapter 1.

The Noé Edition of the Koren Talmud Bavli, Adin Steinsaltz, Koren Publishers Jerusalem. This work was launched in 2012. Opened from the Hebrew side, this edition features the traditional Vilna page with vowels and punctuation in the original Aramaic text, the Rashi commentary appears in Rashi script with vowels and punctuation. Opened from the English side, the edition features bi-lingual text with side-by-side English/Aramaic translation, the margins include color maps, illustrations and notes based on Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz’s Hebrew language translation and commentary of the Talmud. Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb serves as the Editor-in-Chief. As of March 2017, 28 volumes have been published, the entire set will be 42 volumes.

Schottenstein Edition of the Talmud, Mesorah Publications (73 volumes). In this translation, each English page faces the Aramaic/Hebrew page, the English pages are elucidated and heavily annotated; each Aramaic/Hebrew page of Talmud typically requires three English pages of translation and notes. Complete.

The Soncino Talmud, Isidore Epstein, Soncino Press (26 volumes; also formerly an 18 volume edition was published). Notes on each page provide additional background material, this translation is published both on its own and in a parallel text edition, in which each English page faces the Aramaic/Hebrew page. It is available also on CD-ROM. Complete.

The Babylonian Talmud, translated by Michael L. Rodkinson. (1903, contains all of the tractates in the Orders of Mo'ed/Festivals and Nezikin/Damages, plus some additional material related to these Orders.) This is inaccurate[citation needed] and was wholly superseded by the Soncino translation: it is sometimes linked to from the internet because, for copyright reasons, it was until recently the only translation freely available on the Web (see below, under Full text resources).

The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary, edited by Jacob Neusner[33] and translated by Jacob Neusner, Tzvee Zahavy, Alan Avery-Peck, B. Barry Levy, Martin S. Jaffe, and Peter Haas, Hendrickson Pub; 22-Volume Set Ed., Feb. 2011. It is a revision of "The Talmud of Babylonia: An Academic Commentary," published by the University of South Florida Academic Commentary Series (1994-1999). Neusner gives commentary on transition in use langes from Biblical Aramaic to Biblical Hebrew. Neusner also gives references to Mishneh, Torah, and other classical works in Orthodox Judaism.

There is one translation of the Talmud into Arabic, published in 2012 in Jordan by the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, the translation was carried out by a group of 90 Muslim and Christian scholars.[34] The introduction was characterized by Dr. Raquel Ukeles, Curator of the Israel National Library's Arabic collection, as "racist", but she considers the translation itself as "not bad".[35]

In February 2017, the William Davidson Talmud was released to Sefaria,[36] this translation is a version of the Steinsaltz edition which was released under creative commons license. [37]

Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and ExplanationJacob Neusner, Tzvee Zahavy, others. University of Chicago Press, this translation uses a form-analytical presentation that makes the logical units of discourse easier to identify and follow. This work has received many positive reviews. However, some consider Neusner's translation methodology idiosyncratic. One volume was negatively reviewed by Saul Lieberman of the Jewish Theological Seminary.

Schottenstein Edition of the Yerushalmi Talmud Mesorah/Artscroll. This translation is the counterpart to Mesorah/Artscroll's Schottenstein Edition of the Talmud (i.e. Babylonian Talmud).

Modern Elucidated Talmud Yerushalmi, ed. Joshua Buch. Uses the Leiden manuscript as its based text corrected according to manuscripts and Geniza Fragments. Draws upon Traditional and Modern Scholarship - www.talmudyerushalmi.org/talmud-yerushalmi-mevoar/

From the time of its completion, the Talmud became integral to Jewish scholarship. A maxim in Pirkei Avot advocates its study from the age of 15,[38] this section outlines some of the major areas of Talmudic study.

The earliest Talmud commentaries were written by the Geonim (c. 800 - 1000, CE) in Babylonia. Although some direct commentaries on particular treatises are extant, our main knowledge of Gaonic era Talmud scholarship comes from statements embedded in Geonic responsa that shed light on Talmudic passages: these are arranged in the order of the Talmud in Levin's Otzar ha-Geonim. Also important are practical abridgments of Jewish law such as Yehudai Gaon's Halachot Pesukot, Achai Gaon's Sheeltot and Simeon Kayyara's Halachot Gedolot. After the death of Hai Gaon, however, the center of Talmud scholarship shifts to Europe and North Africa.

One area of Talmudic scholarship developed out of the need to ascertain the Halakha. Early commentators such as Rabbi Isaac Alfasi (North Africa, 1013–1103) attempted to extract and determine the binding legal opinions from the vast corpus of the Talmud. Alfasi's work was highly influential, attracted several commentaries in its own right and later served as a basis for the creation of halakhic codes. Another influential medieval Halakhic work following the order of the Babylonian Talmud, and to some extent modelled on Alfasi, was "the Mordechai", a compilation by Mordechai ben Hillel (c. 1250 – 1298). A third such work was that of Rabbi Asher ben Yechiel (d. 1327). All these works and their commentaries are printed in the Vilna and many subsequent editions of the Talmud.

A 15th-century Spanish rabbi, Jacob ibn Habib (d. 1516), composed the Ein Yaakov. Ein Yaakov (or En Ya'aqob) extracts nearly all the Aggadic material from the Talmud. It was intended to familiarize the public with the ethical parts of the Talmud and to dispute many of the accusations surrounding its contents.

The Talmud is often cryptic and difficult to understand, its language contains many Greek and Persian words that became obscure over time. A major area of Talmudic scholarship developed to explain these passages and words, some early commentators such as Rabbenu Gershom of Mainz (10th century) and Rabbenu Ḥananel (early 11th century) produced running commentaries to various tractates. These commentaries could be read with the text of the Talmud and would help explain the meaning of the text. Another important work is the Sefer ha-Mafteaḥ (Book of the Key) by Nissim Gaon, which contains a preface explaining the different forms of Talmudic argumentation and then explains abbreviated passages in the Talmud by cross-referring to parallel passages where the same thought is expressed in full. Commentaries (ḥiddushim) by Joseph ibn Migash on two tractates, Bava Batra and Shevuot, based on Ḥananel and Alfasi, also survive, as does a compilation by Zechariah Aghmati called Sefer ha-Ner.[39] Using a different style, Rabbi Nathan b. Jechiel created a lexicon called the Arukh in the 11th century to help translate difficult words.

By far the best known commentary on the Babylonian Talmud is that of Rashi (Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac, 1040–1105), the commentary is comprehensive, covering almost the entire Talmud. Written as a running commentary, it provides a full explanation of the words, and explains the logical structure of each Talmudic passage, it is considered indispensable to students of the Talmud.

Medieval Ashkenazic Jewry produced another major commentary known as Tosafot ("additions" or "supplements"), the Tosafot are collected commentaries by various medieval Ashkenazic Rabbis on the Talmud (known as Tosafists or Ba'alei Tosafot). One of the main goals of the Tosafot is to explain and interpret contradictory statements in the Talmud. Unlike Rashi, the Tosafot is not a running commentary, but rather comments on selected matters. Often the explanations of Tosafot differ from those of Rashi.

Among the founders of the Tosafist school were Rabbi Jacob ben Meir (known as Rabbeinu Tam), who was a grandson of Rashi, and, Rabbenu Tam's nephew, Rabbi Isaac ben Samuel, the Tosafot commentaries were collected in different editions in the various schools. The benchmark collection of Tosafot for Northern France was that of R. Eliezer of Touques. The standard collection for Spain was that of Rabbenu Asher ("Tosefot Harosh"), the Tosafot that are printed in the standard Vilna edition of the Talmud are an edited version compiled from the various medieval collections, predominantly that of Touques.[40]

Over time, the approach of the Tosafists spread to other Jewish communities, particularly those in Spain, this led to the composition of many other commentaries in similar styles. Among these are the commentaries of Nachmanides (Ramban), Solomon ben Adret (Rashba), Yom Tov of Seville (Ritva) and Nissim of Gerona (Ran). A comprehensive anthology consisting of extracts from all these is the Shittah Mekubbetzet of Bezalel Ashkenazi.

Other commentaries produced in Spain and Provence were not influenced by the Tosafist style. Two of the most significant of these are the Yad Ramah by Rabbi Meir Abulafia and Bet Habechirah by Rabbi Menahem haMeiri, commonly referred to as "Meiri". While the Bet Habechirah is extant for all of Talmud, we only have the Yad Ramah for Tractates Sanhedrin, Baba Batra and Gittin. Like the commentaries of Ramban and the others, these are generally printed as independent works, though some Talmud editions include the Shittah Mekubbetzet in an abbreviated form.

In later centuries, focus partially shifted from direct Talmudic interpretation to the analysis of previously written Talmudic commentaries, these later commentaries include "Maharshal" (Solomon Luria), "Maharam" (Meir Lublin) and "Maharsha" (Samuel Edels), and are generally printed at the back of each tractate.

Another very useful study aid, found in almost all editions of the Talmud, consists of the marginal notes Torah Or, Ein Mishpat Ner Mitzvah and Masoret ha-Shas by the Italian rabbi Joshua Boaz, which give references respectively to the cited Biblical passages, to the relevant halachic codes and to related Talmudic passages.

During the 15th and 16th centuries, a new intensive form of Talmud study arose. Complicated logical arguments were used to explain minor points of contradiction within the Talmud, the term pilpul was applied to this type of study. Usage of pilpul in this sense (that of "sharp analysis") harks back to the Talmudic era and refers to the intellectual sharpness this method demanded.

Pilpul practitioners posited that the Talmud could contain no redundancy or contradiction whatsoever. New categories and distinctions (hillukim) were therefore created, resolving seeming contradictions within the Talmud by novel logical means.

In the Ashkenazi world the founders of pilpul are generally considered to be Jacob Pollak (1460–1541) and Shalom Shachna. This kind of study reached its height in the 16th and 17th centuries when expertise in pilpulistic analysis was considered an art form and became a goal in and of itself within the yeshivot of Poland and Lithuania, but the popular new method of Talmud study was not without critics; already in the 15th century, the ethical tract Orhot Zaddikim ("Paths of the Righteous" in Hebrew) criticized pilpul for an overemphasis on intellectual acuity. Many 16th- and 17th-century rabbis were also critical of pilpul, among them may be noted Judah Loew ben Bezalel (the Maharal of Prague), Isaiah Horowitz, and Yair Bacharach.

By the 18th century, pilpul study waned. Other styles of learning such as that of the school of Elijah b. Solomon, the Vilna Gaon, became popular, the term "pilpul" was increasingly applied derogatorily to novellae deemed casuistic and hairsplitting. Authors referred to their own commentaries as "al derekh ha-peshat" (by the simple method) to contrast them with pilpul.[41]

According to the present-day Sephardi scholar José Faur, traditional Sephardic Talmud study could take place on any of three levels.[45]

The most basic level consists of literary analysis of the text without the help of commentaries, designed to bring out the tzurata di-shema'ta, i.e. the logical and narrative structure of the passage.[46]

The intermediate level, 'iyyun (concentration), consists of study with the help of commentaries such as Rashi and the Tosafot, similar to that practised among the Ashkenazim.[47] Historically Sephardim studied the Tosefot ha-Rosh and the commentaries of Nahmanides in preference to the printed Tosafot.[48] A method based on the study of Tosafot, and of Ashkenazi authorities such as Maharsha (Samuel Edels) and Maharshal (Solomon Luria), was introduced in late seventeenth century Tunisia by Rabbis Abraham Hakohen (d. 1715) and Tsemaḥ Tsarfati (d. 1717) and perpetuated by Rabbi Isaac Lumbroso[49] and is sometimes referred to as 'Iyyun Tunisa'i.[50]

The highest level, halachah (Jewish law), consists of collating the opinions set out in the Talmud with those of the halachic codes such as the Mishneh Torah and the Shulchan Aruch, so as to study the Talmud as a source of law. (A project called Halacha Brura,[51] founded by Abraham Isaac Kook, presents the Talmud and a summary of the halachic codes side by side in book form so as to enable this kind of collation.)

Today most Sephardic yeshivot follow Lithuanian approaches such as the Brisker method: the traditional Sephardic methods are perpetuated informally by some individuals. 'Iyyun Tunisa'i is taught at the Kisse Rahamim yeshivah in Bnei Brak.

In the late 19th century another trend in Talmud study arose. Rabbi Hayyim Soloveitchik (1853–1918) of Brisk (Brest-Litovsk) developed and refined this style of study. Brisker method involves a reductionistic analysis of rabbinic arguments within the Talmud or among the Rishonim, explaining the differing opinions by placing them within a categorical structure. The Brisker method is highly analytical and is often criticized as being a modern-day version of pilpul. Nevertheless, the influence of the Brisker method is great. Most modern day Yeshivot study the Talmud using the Brisker method in some form. One feature of this method is the use of Maimonides' Mishneh Torah as a guide to Talmudic interpretation, as distinct from its use as a source of practical halakha.

The text of the Talmud has been subject to some level of critical scrutiny throughout its history. Rabbinic tradition holds that the people cited in both Talmuds did not have a hand in its writings; rather, their teachings were edited into a rough form around 450 CE (Talmud Yerushalmi) and 550 CE (Talmud Bavli.) The text of the Bavli especially was not firmly fixed at that time.

"...But you must examine carefully in every case when you feel uncertainty [as to the credibility of the text] - what is its source? Whether a scribal error? Or the superficiality of a second rate student who was not well versed?....after the manner of many mistakes found among those superficial second-rate students, and certainly among those rural memorizers who were not familiar with the biblical text. And since they erred in the first place....[they compounded the error.]

In the early medieval era, Rashi already concluded that some statements in the extant text of the Talmud were insertions from later editors, on Shevuot 3b Rashi writes "A mistaken student wrote this in the margin of the Talmud, and copyists {subsequently} put it into the Gemara."[53]

The emendations of Yoel Sirkis and the Vilna Gaon are included in all standard editions of the Talmud, in the form of marginal glosses entitled Hagahot ha-Bach and Hagahot ha-Gra respectively; further emendations by Solomon Luria are set out in commentary form at the back of each tractate. The Vilna Gaon's emendations were often based on his quest for internal consistency in the text rather than on manuscript evidence;[54] nevertheless many of the Gaon's emendations were later verified by textual critics, such as Solomon Schechter, who had Cairo Genizah texts with which to compare our standard editions.[55]

In the 19th century Raphael Nathan Nota Rabinovicz published a multi-volume work entitled Dikdukei Soferim, showing textual variants from the Munich and other early manuscripts of the Talmud, and further variants are recorded in the Complete Israeli Talmud and Gemara Shelemah editions (see Printing, above).

Today many more manuscripts have become available, in particular from the Cairo Geniza, the Academy of the Hebrew Language has prepared a text on CD-ROM for lexicographical purposes, containing the text of each tractate according to the manuscript it considers most reliable,[56] and images of some of the older manuscripts may be found on the website of the Jewish National and University Library.[57] The JNUL, the Lieberman Institute (associated with the Jewish Theological Seminary of America), the Institute for the Complete Israeli Talmud (part of Yad Harav Herzog) and the Friedberg Jewish Manuscript Society all maintain searchable websites on which the viewer can request variant manuscript readings of a given passage.[58]

Historical study of the Talmud can be used to investigate a variety of concerns. One can ask questions such as: Do a given section's sources date from its editor's lifetime? To what extent does a section have earlier or later sources? Are Talmudic disputes distinguishable along theological or communal lines? In what ways do different sections derive from different schools of thought within early Judaism? Can these early sources be identified, and if so, how? Investigation of questions such as these are known as higher textual criticism. (The term "criticism", it should be noted, is a technical term denoting academic study.)

Religious scholars still debate the precise method by which the text of the Talmuds reached their final form. Many believe that the text was continuously smoothed over by the savoraim.

In the 1870s and 1880s Rabbi Raphael Natan Nata Rabbinovitz engaged in historical study of Talmud Bavli in his Diqduqei Soferim, since then many Orthodox rabbis have approved of his work, including Rabbis Shlomo Kluger, Yoseph Shaul Ha-Levi Natanzohn, Yaaqov Ettlinger, Isaac Elhanan Spektor and Shimon Sofer.

During the early 19th century, leaders of the newly evolving Reform movement, such as Abraham Geiger and Samuel Holdheim, subjected the Talmud to severe scrutiny as part of an effort to break with traditional rabbinic Judaism. They insisted that the Talmud was entirely a work of evolution and development, this view was rejected as both academically incorrect, and religiously incorrect, by those who would become known as the Orthodox movement. Some Orthodox leaders such as Moses Sofer (the Chatam Sofer) became exquisitely sensitive to any change and rejected modern critical methods of Talmud study.

Some rabbis advocated a view of Talmudic study that they held to be in-between the Reformers and the Orthodox; these were the adherents of positive-historical Judaism, notably Nachman Krochmal and Zecharias Frankel. They described the Oral Torah as the result of a historical and exegetical process, emerging over time, through the application of authorized exegetical techniques, and more importantly, the subjective dispositions and personalities and current historical conditions, by learned sages, this was later developed more fully in the five volume work Dor Dor ve-Dorshav by Isaac Hirsch Weiss. (See Jay Harris Guiding the Perplexed in the Modern Age Ch. 5) Eventually their work came to be one of the formative parts of Conservative Judaism.

Another aspect of this movement is reflected in Graetz's History of the Jews. Graetz attempts to deduce the personality of the Pharisees based on the laws or aggadot that they cite, and show that their personalities influenced the laws they expounded.

The leader of Orthodox Jewry in Germany Samson Raphael Hirsch, while not rejecting the methods of scholarship in principle, hotly contested the findings of the Historical-Critical method; in a series of articles in his magazine Jeschurun (reprinted in Collected Writings Vol. 5) Hirsch reiterated the traditional view, and pointed out what he saw as numerous errors in the works of Graetz, Frankel and Geiger.

On the other hand, many of the 19th century's strongest critics of Reform, including strictly orthodox Rabbis such as Zvi Hirsch Chajes, utilized this new scientific method, the Orthodox Rabbinical seminary of Azriel Hildesheimer was founded on the idea of creating a "harmony between Judaism and science". Another Orthodox pioneer of scientific Talmud study was David Zvi Hoffman.

The Iraqi rabbi Yaakov Chaim Sofer notes that the text of the Gemara has had changes and additions, and contains statements not of the same origin as the original. See his Yehi Yosef (Jerusalem, 1991) p. 132 "This passage does not bear the signature of the editor of the Talmud!"

Orthodox scholar Daniel Sperber writes in "Legitimacy, of Necessity, of Scientific Disciplines" that many Orthodox sources have engaged in the historical (also called "scientific") study of the Talmud, as such, the divide today between Orthodoxy and Reform is not about whether the Talmud may be subjected to historical study, but rather about the theological and halakhic implications of such study.

Orthodox Judaism maintains that the oral Torah was revealed, in some form, together with the written Torah. As such, some adherents, most notably Samson Raphael Hirsch and his followers, resisted any effort to apply historical methods that imputed specific motives to the authors of the Talmud. Other major figures in Orthodoxy, however, took issue with Hirsch on this matter, most prominently David Tzvi Hoffmann.[59]

Some scholars hold that there has been extensive editorial reshaping of the stories and statements within the Talmud. Lacking outside confirming texts, they hold that we cannot confirm the origin or date of most statements and laws, and that we can say little for certain about their authorship; in this view, the questions above are impossible to answer. See, for example, the works of Louis Jacobs and Shaye J.D. Cohen.

Some scholars hold that the Talmud has been extensively shaped by later editorial redaction, but that it contains sources we can identify and describe with some level of reliability. In this view, sources can be identified by tracing the history and analyzing the geographical regions of origin. See, for example, the works of Lee I. Levine and David Kraemer.

Some scholars hold that many or most of the statements and events described in the Talmud usually occurred more or less as described, and that they can be used as serious sources of historical study. In this view, historians do their best to tease out later editorial additions (itself a very difficult task) and skeptically view accounts of miracles, leaving behind a reliable historical text. See, for example, the works of Saul Lieberman, David Weiss Halivni, and Avraham Goldberg.

Modern academic study attempts to separate the different "strata" within the text, to try to interpret each level on its own, and to identify the correlations between parallel versions of the same tradition. In recent years, the works of R. David Weiss Halivni and Dr. Shamma Friedman have suggested a paradigm shift in the understanding of the Talmud (Encyclopaedia Judaica 2nd ed. entry "Talmud, Babylonian"). The traditional understanding was to view the Talmud as a unified homogeneous work. While other scholars had also treated the Talmud as a multi-layered work, Dr. Halivni's innovation (primarily in the second volume of his Mekorot u-Mesorot) was to differentiate between the Amoraic statements, which are generally brief Halachic decisions or inquiries, and the writings of the later "Stammaitic" (or Saboraic) authors, which are characterised by a much longer analysis that often consists of lengthy dialectic discussion, it has been noted that the Jerusalem Talmud is in fact very similar to the Babylonian Talmud minus Stammaitic activity (Encyclopaedia Judaica (2nd ed.), entry "Jerusalem Talmud"). Shamma Y. Friedman's Talmud Aruch on the sixth chapter of Bava Metzia (1996) is the first example of a complete analysis of a Talmudic text using this method. S. Wald has followed with works on Pesachim ch. 3 (2000) and Shabbat ch. 7 (2006). Further commentaries in this sense are being published by Dr Friedman's "Society for the Interpretation of the Talmud".[60]

Some scholars are indeed using outside sources to help give historical and contextual understanding of certain areas of the Babylonian Talmud. See for example the works of the Prof Yaakov Elman[61] and of his student Dr. Shai Secunda,[62] which seek to place the Talmud in its Iranian context, for example by comparing it with contemporary Zoroastrian texts.

The Talmud represents the written record of an oral tradition, it became the basis for many rabbinic legal codes and customs, most importantly for the Mishneh Torah and for the Shulchan Aruch. Orthodox and, to a lesser extent, Conservative Judaism accepts the Talmud as authoritative, while Samaritan, Karaite, Reconstructionist, and Reform Judaism do not, this section briefly outlines past and current movements and their view of the Talmud's role.

The Jewish sect of the Sadducees (Hebrew: צְדוּקִים) flourished during the Second Temple period. Principal distinctions between them and the Pharisees (later known as Rabbinic Judaism) involved their rejection of an Oral Torah and their denying a resurrection after death.

Another movement that rejected the oral Torah was Karaism, it arose within two centuries of the completion of the Talmud. Karaism developed as a reaction against the Talmudic Judaism of Babylonia, the central concept of Karaism is the rejection of the Oral Torah, as embodied in the Talmud, in favor of a strict adherence to the Written Torah only. This opposes the fundamental Rabbinic concept that the Oral Torah was given to Moses on Mount Sinai together with the Written Torah. Some later Karaites took a more moderate stance, allowing that some element of tradition (called sevel ha-yerushah, the burden of inheritance) is admissible in interpreting the Torah and that some authentic traditions are contained in the Mishnah and the Talmud, though these can never supersede the plain meaning of the Written Torah.

The rise of Reform Judaism during the 19th century saw more questioning of the authority of the Talmud. Reform Jews saw the Talmud as a product of late antiquity, having relevance merely as a historical document, for example, the "Declaration of Principles" issued by the Association of Friends of Reform Frankfurt in August 1843 states among other things that:

The collection of controversies, dissertations, and prescriptions commonly designated by the name Talmud possesses for us no authority, from either the dogmatic or the practical standpoint.

Some took a critical-historical view of the written Torah as well, while others appeared to adopt a neo-Karaite "back to the Bible" approach, though often with greater emphasis on the prophetic than on the legal books.

Orthodox Judaism continues to stress the importance of Talmud study as a central component of Yeshiva curriculum, in particular for those training to become Rabbis. This is so even though Halakha is generally studied from the medieval and early modern codes and not directly from the Talmud. Talmudic study amongst the laity is widespread in Orthodox Judaism, with daily or weekly Talmud study particularly common in Haredi Judaism and with Talmud study a central part of the curriculum in Orthodox Yeshivas and day schools, the regular study of Talmud among laymen has been popularized by the Daf Yomi, a daily course of Talmud study initiated by Rabbi Meir Shapiro in 1923; its 13th cycle of study began on August, 2012. The Rohr Jewish Learning Institute has popularized the "MyShiur - Explorations in Talmud" to show how the Talmud is relevant to a wide range of people.[64]

Conservative Judaism similarly emphasizes the study of Talmud within its religious and rabbinic education. Generally, however, Conservative Jews study the Talmud as a historical source-text for Halakha, the Conservative approach to legal decision-making emphasizes placing classic texts and prior decisions in historical and cultural context, and examining the historical development of Halakha. This approach has resulted in greater practical flexibility than that of the Orthodox. Talmud study forms part of the curriculum of Conservative parochial education at many Conservative day-schools, and an increase in Conservative day-school enrollments has resulted in an increase in Talmud study as part of Conservative Jewish education among a minority of Conservative Jews. See also: The Conservative Jewish view of the Halakha.

Reform Judaism does not emphasize the study of Talmud to the same degree in their Hebrew schools, but they do teach it in their rabbinical seminaries; the world view of liberal Judaism rejects the idea of binding Jewish law, and uses the Talmud as a source of inspiration and moral instruction. Ownership and reading of the Talmud is not widespread among Reform and Reconstructionist Jews, who usually place more emphasis on the study of the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh.

The study of Talmud is not restricted to those of the Jewish religion and has attracted interest in other cultures.

Christian scholars have long expressed an interest in the study of Talmud which has helped illuminate their own scriptures. Talmud contains biblical exegesis and commentary on Tanakh that will often clarify elliptical and esoteric passages, the Talmud contains possible references to Jesus Christ and his disciples, while the Christian canon makes mention of Talmudic figures and contains teachings that can be paralleled within the Talmud and Midrash. The Talmud provides cultural and historical context to the Gospel and the writings of the Apostles.[66]

South Koreans reportedly hope to emulate Jews' high academic standards by studying Jewish literature. Almost every household has a translated copy of a book they call "Talmud", which parents read to their children, and the book is part of the primary-school curriculum,[67][68] the "Talmud" in this case is usually one of several possible volumes, the earliest translated into Korean from the Japanese. The original Japanese books were created through the collaboration of Japanese writer Hideaki Kase and Marvin Tokayer, an Orthodox American rabbi serving in Japan in the 1960s and 70s, the first collaborative book was 5,000 Years of Jewish Wisdom: Secrets of the Talmud Scriptures, created over a three-day period in 1968 and published in 1971. The book contains actual stories from the Talmud, proverbs, ethics, Jewish legal material, biographies of Talmudic rabbis, and personal stories about Tokayer and his family. Tokayer and Kase published a number of other books on Jewish themes together in Japanese.[69]

The first South Korean publication of 5,000 Years of Jewish Wisdom was in 1974, by Tae Zang publishing house. Many different editions followed in both Korea and China, often by black-market publishers. Between 2007 and 2009, Reverend Yong-soo Hyun of the Shema Yisrael Educational Institute published a 6-volume edition of the Korean Talmud, bringing together material from a variety of Tokayer's earlier books, he worked with Tokayer to correct errors and Tokayer is listed as the author. Tutoring centers based on this and other works called "Talmud" for both adults and children are popular in Korea and "Talmud" books (all based on Tokayer's works and not the original Talmud) are widely read and known.[69]

Defenders of the Talmud argue that many of these criticisms, particularly those in antisemitic sources, are based on quotations that are taken out of context, and thus misrepresent the meaning of the Talmud's text. Sometimes the misrepresentation is deliberate, and other times simply due to an inability to grasp the subtle and sometimes confusing narratives in the Talmud, some quotations provided by critics deliberately omit passages in order to generate quotes that appear to be offensive or insulting.[90][91]

At the very time that the Babyloniansavoraim put the finishing touches to the redaction of the Talmud, the emperorJustinian issued his edict against deuterosis (doubling, repetition) of the Hebrew Bible.[92] It is disputed whether, in this context, deuterosis means "Mishnah" or "Targum": in patristic literature, the word is used in both senses.

Full-scale attacks on the Talmud took place in the 13th century in France, where Talmudic study was then flourishing; in the 1230s, Nicholas Donin, a Jewish convert to Christianity, pressed 35 charges against the Talmud to Pope Gregory IX by translating a series of blasphemous passages about Jesus, Mary or Christianity. There is a quoted Talmudic passage, for example, where Jesus of Nazareth is sent to Hell to be boiled in excrement for eternity. Donin also selected an injunction of the Talmud that permits Jews to kill non-Jews, this led to the Disputation of Paris, which took place in 1240 at the court of Louis IX of France, where four rabbis, including Yechiel of Paris and Moses ben Jacob of Coucy, defended the Talmud against the accusations of Nicholas Donin. The translation of the Talmud from Hebrew to non-Jewish languages stripped Jewish discourse from its covering, something that was resented by Jews as a profound violation,[93] the Disputation of Paris led to the condemnation and the first burning of copies of the Talmud in Paris in 1242.[94][95][96] The burning of copies of the Talmud continued.[97]

The Talmud was likewise the subject of the Disputation of Barcelona in 1263 between Nahmanides (Rabbi Moses ben Nahman) and Christian convert, Pablo Christiani, this same Pablo Christiani made an attack on the Talmud that resulted in a papal bull against the Talmud and in the first censorship, which was undertaken at Barcelona by a commission of Dominicans, who ordered the cancellation of passages deemed objectionable from a Christian perspective (1264).[98][99]

At the Disputation of Tortosa in 1413, Geronimo de Santa Fé brought forward a number of accusations, including the fateful assertion that the condemnations of "pagans," "heathens," and "apostates" found in the Talmud were in reality veiled references to Christians, these assertions were denied by the Jewish community and its scholars, who contended that Judaic thought made a sharp distinction between those classified as heathen or pagan, being polytheistic, and those who acknowledge one true God (such as the Christians) even while worshipping the true monotheistic God incorrectly. Thus, Jews viewed Christians as misguided and in error, but not among the "heathens" or "pagans" discussed in the Talmud.[99]

Both Pablo Christiani and Geronimo de Santa Fé, in addition to criticizing the Talmud, also regarded it as a source of authentic traditions, some of which could be used as arguments in favour of Christianity. Examples of such traditions were statements that the Messiah was born around the time of the destruction of the Temple, and that the Messiah sat at the right hand of God.[100]

In 1415, Antipope Benedict XIII, who had convened the Tortosa disputation, issued a papal bull (which was destined, however, to remain inoperative) forbidding the Jews to read the Talmud, and ordering the destruction of all copies of it. Far more important were the charges made in the early part of the 16th century by the convert Johannes Pfefferkorn, the agent of the Dominicans, the result of these accusations was a struggle in which the emperor and the pope acted as judges, the advocate of the Jews being Johann Reuchlin, who was opposed by the obscurantists; and this controversy, which was carried on for the most part by means of pamphlets, became in the eyes of some a precursor of the Reformation.[99][101]

An unexpected result of this affair was the complete printed edition of the Babylonian Talmud issued in 1520 by Daniel Bomberg at Venice, under the protection of a papal privilege.[102] Three years later, in 1523, Bomberg published the first edition of the Jerusalem Talmud, after thirty years the Vatican, which had first permitted the Talmud to appear in print, undertook a campaign of destruction against it. On the New Year, Rosh Hashanah (September 9, 1553) the copies of the Talmud confiscated in compliance with a decree of the Inquisition were burned at Rome, in Campo dei Fiori (auto de fé). Other burnings took place in other Italian cities, such as the one instigated by Joshua dei Cantori at Cremona in 1559. Censorship of the Talmud and other Hebrew works was introduced by a papal bull issued in 1554; five years later the Talmud was included in the first Index Expurgatorius; and Pope Pius IV commanded, in 1565, that the Talmud be deprived of its very name. The convention of referring to the work as "Shas" (shishah sidre Mishnah) instead of "Talmud" dates from this time.[103]

The first edition of the expurgated Talmud, on which most subsequent editions were based, appeared at Basel (1578–1581) with the omission of the entire treatise of 'Abodah Zarah and of passages considered inimical to Christianity, together with modifications of certain phrases. A fresh attack on the Talmud was decreed by Pope Gregory XIII (1575–85), and in 1593 Clement VIII renewed the old interdiction against reading or owning it.[citation needed] The increasing study of the Talmud in Poland led to the issue of a complete edition (Kraków, 1602-5), with a restoration of the original text; an edition containing, so far as known, only two treatises had previously been published at Lublin (1559–76). In 1707 some copies of the Talmud were confiscated in the province of Brandenburg, but were restored to their owners by command of Frederick, the first king of Prussia.[citation needed] A further attack on the Talmud took place in Poland (in what is now Ukrainian territory) in 1757, when Bishop Dembowski, at the instigation of the Frankists, convened a public disputation at Kamianets-Podilskyi, and ordered all copies of the work found in his bishopric to be confiscated and burned.[104]

The external history of the Talmud includes also the literary attacks made upon it by some Christian theologians after the Reformation, since these onslaughts on Judaism were directed primarily against that work, the leading example being Eisenmenger's Entdecktes Judenthum (Judaism Unmasked) (1700).[105][106][107] In contrast, the Talmud was a subject of rather more sympathetic study by many Christian theologians, jurists and Orientalists from the Renaissance on, including Johann Reuchlin, John Selden, Petrus Cunaeus, John Lightfoot and Johannes Buxtorf father and son.[108]

The Vilna edition of the Talmud was subject to Russian government censorship, or self-censorship to meet government expectations, though this was less severe than some previous attempts: the title "Talmud" was retained and the tractate Avodah Zarah was included. Most modern editions are either copies of or closely based on the Vilna edition, and therefore still omit most of the disputed passages, although they were not available for many generations, the removed sections of the Talmud, Rashi, Tosafot and Maharsha were preserved through rare printings of lists of errata, known as Chesronos Hashas ("Omissions of the Talmud").[109] Many of these censored portions were recovered from uncensored manuscripts in the Vatican Library, some modern editions of the Talmud contain some or all of this material, either at the back of the book, in the margin, or in its original location in the text.[110]

In 1830, during a debate in the French Chamber of Peers regarding state recognition of the Jewish faith, Admiral Verhuell declared himself unable to forgive the Jews whom he had met during his travels throughout the world either for their refusal to recognize Jesus as the Messiah or for their possession of the Talmud.[111] In the same year the Abbé Chiarini published a voluminous work entitled Théorie du Judaïsme, in which he announced a translation of the Talmud, advocating for the first time a version that would make the work generally accessible, and thus serve for attacks on Judaism: only two out of the projected six volumes of this translation appeared.[112] In a like spirit 19th-century anti-Semitic agitators often urged that a translation be made; and this demand was even brought before legislative bodies, as in Vienna. The Talmud and the "Talmud Jew" thus became objects of anti-Semitic attacks, for example in August Rohling's Der Talmudjude (1871), although, on the other hand, they were defended by many Christian students of the Talmud, notably Hermann Strack.[113]

Criticism of the Talmud is widespread, in great part through the internet,[116] the Anti-Defamation League's report on this topic states that antisemitic critics of the Talmud frequently use erroneous translations or selective quotations in order to distort the meaning of the Talmud's text, and sometimes fabricate passages. In addition, the attackers rarely provide full context of the quotations, and fail to provide contextual information about the culture that the Talmud was composed in, nearly 2,000 years ago.[117]

One such example concerns the line "If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Who ever will violate this order shall be put to death." alleged to be a quote from a book titled Libbre David (alternatively Livore David). No such book exists in the Talmud or elsewhere,[118] the title is assumed to be a corruption of Dibre David, a work published in 1671.[119] Reference to the quote is found in an early Holocaust denial book, The Six Million Reconsidered by William Grimstad.[120]

Gil Student, an internet author, states that many attacks on the Talmud are merely recycling discredited material that originated in the 13th-century disputations, particularly from Raymond Marti and Nicholas Donin, and that the criticisms are based on quotations taken out of context, and are sometimes entirely fabricated.[121]

^Goldberg, Abraham (1987). "The Palestinian Talmud". In Safrai, Shmuel. The Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud, Volume 3 The Literature of the Sages. Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004275133_008.

^See, Strack, Hermann, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, Jewish Publication Society, 1945. pp.11-12. "[The Oral Torah] was handed down by word of mouth during a long period...The first attempts to write down the traditional matter, there is reason to believe, date from the first half of the second post-Christian century." Strack theorizes that the growth of a Christian canon (the New Testament) was a factor that influenced the Rabbis to record the oral Torah in writing.

^The theory that the destruction of the Temple and subsequent upheaval led to the committing of Oral Torah into writing was first explained in the Epistle of Sherira Gaon and often repeated. See, for example, Grayzel, A History of the Jews, Penguin Books, 1984, p. 193.

^Sáenz-Badillos, Ángel and John Elwolde. 1996. A history of the Hebrew language. P.170-171: "There is general agreement that two main periods of RH (Rabbinical Hebrew) can be distinguished. The first, which lasted until the close of the Tannaitic era (around 200 CE), is characterized by RH as a spoken language gradually developing into a literary medium in which the Mishnah, Tosefta, baraitot, and Tannaitic midrashim would be composed. The second stage begins with the Amoraim, and sees RH being replaced by Aramaic as the spoken vernacular, surviving only as a literary language. Then it continued to be used in later rabbinic writings until the 10th century in, for example, the Hebrew portions of the two Talmuds and in midrashic and haggadic literature."

^Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin. The Censor, the Editor, and the Text: The Catholic Church and the Shaping of the Jewish Canon in the Sixteenth Century. Trans. Jackie Feldman. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007. viii + 314 ISBN978-0-8122-4011-5. p104

^Christiane Berkvens-Stevelinck Le Magasin De L'Univers - The Dutch Republic As the Centre of the European Book Trade (Brill's Studies in Intellectual History)

^Printing the Talmud: a history of the individual treatises p239 Marvin J. Heller - 1999 "The Benveniste Talmud, according to Rabbinovicz, was based on the Lublin Talmud which included many of the censors' errors"

^The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia Isaac Landman - 1941 "His greatest work was the translation of the entire Babylonian Talmud into German, which, as it was made from the uncensored text and was the only complete translation in a European language, was of great value for students."

^Friedman, “Variant Readings in the Babylonian Talmud — A Methodological Study Marking the Appearance of 13 Volumes of the Institute for the Complete Israeli Talmud’s Edition,” Tarbiz 68 (1998).

^For a Hebrew account of the Paris Disputation, see Jehiel of Paris, "The Disputation of Jehiel of Paris" (Hebrew), in Collected Polemics and Disputations, ed. J. D. Eisenstein, Hebrew Publishing Company, 1922; Translated and reprinted by Hyam Maccoby in Judaism on Trial: Jewish-Christian Disputations in the Middle Ages, 1982

^James Carroll Constantine's sword: the church and the Jews : a history

^Jeansonne, Glen, Women of the Far Right: The Mothers' Movement and World War II, University of Chicago Press, 1997, pp 168-169

^Jones, Jeremy (June 1999). "Talmudic Terrors". Australia/Israel Review. Archived from the original on 2002-03-30. Retrieved 2008-06-12. If any reader doubts the maliciousness, virulence and prevalence of such material in cyber-space, it is well worth a visit to the Internet site known as Talmud Exposé (www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815 [now at http://www.oocities.org/athens/cyprus/8815/]), in which Melbourne's David Maddison has performed the Herculean task of responding, one by one, to the hundreds of "anti-Talmud" quotes, lies and themes he has encountered on the Internet..

^"The Talmud in Anti-Semitic Polemics"(PDF) (Press release). Anti-Defamation League. February 2003. Archived from the original(PDF) on August 5, 2010. Retrieved September 16, 2010. By selectively citing various passages from the Talmud and Midrash, polemicists have sought to demonstrate that Judaism espouses hatred for non-Jews (and specifically for Christians), and promotes obscenity, sexual perversion, and other immoral behavior. To make these passages serve their purposes, these polemicists frequently mistranslate them or cite them out of context (wholesale fabrication of passages is not unknown).…In distorting the normative meanings of rabbinic texts, anti-Talmud writers frequently remove passages from their textual and historical contexts. Even when they present their citations accurately, they judge the passages based on contemporary moral standards, ignoring the fact that the majority of these passages were composed close to two thousand years ago by people living in cultures radically different from our own, they are thus able to ignore Judaism's long history of social progress and paint it instead as a primitive and parochial religion. Those who attack the Talmud frequently cite ancient rabbinic sources without noting subsequent developments in Jewish thought, and without making a good-faith effort to consult with contemporary Jewish authorities who can explain the role of these sources in normative Jewish thought and practice.

^Andrew J. Hurley (1991). Israel and the New World Order. Foundation for a New World Order, Santa Barbara,: Fithian Press. ISBN9780931832994.

^The Six Million Reconsidered: A Special Report by the Committee for Truth in History, p. 16 Historical Review Press, 1979

^Student, Gil (2000). "The Real Truth About The Talmud". Retrieved September 16, 2010. Anti-Talmud accusations have a long history dating back to the 13th century when the associates of the Inquisition attempted to defame Jews and their religion [see Yitzchak Baer, A History of Jews in Christian Spain, vol. I pp. 150-185]. The early material compiled by hateful preachers like Raymond Martini and Nicholas Donin remain the basis of all subsequent accusations against the Talmud, some are true, most are false and based on quotations taken out of context, and some are total fabrications [see Baer, ch. 4 f. 54, 82 that it has been proven that Raymond Martini forged quotations]. On the Internet today we can find many of these old accusations being rehashed…

1.
Adolf Behrman
–
Abraham Adolf Behrman was a Jewish-Polish-born painter of interwar Poland best known for his outdoor paintings of Jewish shtetl life as well as landscapes and group portraits. He spent most of his life in Łódź and died during the liquidation of the Białystok Ghetto in the Holocaust, Behrmans place of birth is uncertain. He was born either in the town of Tukkum near Mitawa, or in Riga, the son of Róża and Markus Behrman, Adolf studied art under Jakub Kacenbogen at his private Drawing School in Łódź before the 1900s. He continued his studies in Munich in 1900–1904, first privately and his paintings inspired the art critic Zygmunt Bomberg-Batowski to write, Their diverse themes, the depiction - those are always picturesque. This modest artist always thoroughly and lovingly considers any issues brought by a particular theme and he lived there, studied at the Academy and worked for the next five years. From 1924 to 1927, Behrman traveled to Palestine, Egypt and his landscapes originating from that period have become the most known part of his work. Behrmans palette became brighter in that period with the introduction of impressionist tones, in the 1930s, he returned to Poland and went to Kazimierz Dolny for the first time. There, he created one of his most important works, Interior of the Synagogue in Kazimierz Dolny, Behrman was a painter of scenes from daily life of the Polish Jews and views of Jewish quarters. His last major exhibit took place in 1935 in Łódź, after the Nazi German and Soviet invasion of Poland, Behrman escaped to Białystok in the Russian zone of occupation. He was killed in 1943 by the Nazis in the Białystok Ghetto around the time of the perilous Białystok Ghetto Uprising, many of Behrmans paintings were destroyed in World War II. Some of his paintings can be found at the Historical Museum of Kraków, dr. Waldemar Odorowski, In Kazimierz the Vistula River spoke to them in Yiddish. com, Abraham Behrmann, Past Auction Results Behrmans works in Central Jewish Library

2.
Mishnah
–
The Mishnah or Mishna is the first major written redaction of the Jewish oral traditions known as the Oral Torah. It is also the first major work of Rabbinic literature, most of the Mishnah is written in Mishnaic Hebrew, while some parts are Aramaic. The Mishnah consists of six orders, each containing 7–12 tractates,63 in total, the word Mishnah can also indicate a single paragraph or a verse of the work itself, i. e. the smallest unit of structure in the Mishnah. For this reason the work is sometimes called by the plural. The term Mishnah originally referred to a method of teaching by presenting topics in an order, as contrasted with Midrash. The Mishnah consists of six orders, each containing 7–12 tractates,63 in total, each masechet is divided into chapters and then paragraphs. In this last context, the word means a single paragraph of the work, i. e. the smallest unit of structure, leading to the use of the plural, Mishnayot. Because of the division into six orders, the Mishnah is sometimes called Shas, in each order, tractates are arranged from biggest to smallest. A popular mnemonic consists of the acronym ZMaN NaKaT, the Babylonian Talmud states that there were either six hundred or seven hundred orders of the Mishnah. Hillel the Elder organized them into six orders to make it easier to remember, the historical accuracy of this tradition is disputed. There is also a tradition that Ezra the scribe dictated from memory not only the 24 books of the Tanakh but 60 esoteric books. It is not known whether this is a reference to the Mishnah, interestingly, Reuvein Margolies posited that there were originally seven orders of Mishnah, citing a Gaonic tradition on the existence of a seventh order containing the laws of Stam and Berachot. A number of important laws are not elaborated upon in the Mishnah and these include the laws of tzitzit, tefillin, mezuzot, the holiday of Hanukkah, and the laws of conversion to Judaism. These were later discussed in the minor tractates, nissim ben Jacobs Hakdamah Lemafteach Hatalmud argued that it was unnecessary for Judah the Prince to discuss them as many of these laws were so well known. Rabbinic commentaries on the Mishnah from the four centuries, done in the Land of Israel. In themselves they are known as Gemara, the books which set out the Mishnah in its original structure, together with the associated Gemara, are known as Talmuds. Two Talmuds were compiled, the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud, unlike the Hebrew Mishnah, the Gemara is written primarily in Aramaic. The Mishnah does not claim to be the development of new laws, the term Mishnah is related to the verb shanah, to teach or repeat, and to the adjectives sheni and mishneh, meaning second

3.
Tosefta
–
The Tosefta is a compilation of the Jewish oral law from the late 2nd century, the period of the Mishnah. In many ways, the Tosefta acts as a supplement to the Mishnah, the Mishnah is the basic compilation of the Oral law of Judaism, according to the tradition, it was compiled in 189 CE. The Tosefta closely corresponds to the Mishnah, with the divisions for sedarim. It is mainly written in Mishnaic Hebrew, with some Aramaic, at times the text of the Tosefta agrees nearly verbatim with the Mishnah. At others there are significant differences, the Tosefta often attributes laws that are anonymous in the Mishnah to named Tannaim. It also augments the Mishnah with additional glosses and discussions and it offers additional aggadic and midrashic material, and it sometimes contradicts the Mishnah in the ruling of Jewish law, or in attributing in whose name a law was stated. According to rabbinic tradition, the Tosefta was redacted by Rabbis Ḥiya, whereas the Mishna was considered authoritative, the Tosefta was supplementary. The Talmud often utilizes the traditions found in the Tosefta to examine the text of the Mishnah, the traditional view is that the Tosefta should be dated to a period concurrent with or shortly after the redaction of the Mishnah. This view pre-supposes that the Tosefta was produced in order to record variant material not included in the Mishnah, modern scholarship can be roughly divided into two camps. Some, such as Jacob N. Epstein theorize that the Tosefta as we have it developed from a proto-Tosefta recension which formed much of the basis for later Amoraic debate. Others, such as Hanokh Albeck, theorize that the Tosefta is a compendium of several baraitot collections which were in use during the Amoraic period. Professor Shamma Friedman, has found that the Tosefta draws on relatively early Tannaitic source material, ultimately, the state of the source material is such to allow divergent opinions to exist. These opinions serve to show the difficulties in establishing a clear picture of the origins of the Tosefta, Rabbi Sherira Gaon, in a letter written to the heads of the Jewish community in Kairuan, has disclosed somewhat about the authority of the Tosefta in relation to the Mishnah. There, he writes, We do not follow the opinion of R. Ḥiya, as expressed in a Baraita, if he disputes with Rebbe. For example, let us suppose that a certain halacha had originally been a matter of dispute between R. Meir and R. Yosi, but Rebbe decided to record in the Mishnah only R. Meirs opinion. Whenever R. Meir and R. Yosi disagree, the halacha follows R. Yosi, nevertheless, since in the Mishnah, Rebbe mentioned only R. Meirs opinion, we follow R. Meir. Rabbi Sherira Gaon then brings down the reverse of this example, Or, however, R. Ḥiya prefers R. Meirs argument, and therefore records it in a Baraita without mentioning R. Yosis opposing view. In such a case, we do not accept decision, three manuscripts exist of the Tosefta, they are, Vienna, Erfurt, and, London

4.
Amoraim
–
Amoraim refers to the Jewish scholars of the period from about 200 to 500 CE, who said or told over the teachings of the Oral Torah. They were concentrated in Babylonia and the Land of Israel and their legal discussions and debates were eventually codified in the Gemara. The Amoraim followed the Tannaim in the sequence of ancient Jewish scholars, the Tannaim were direct transmitters of uncodified oral tradition, the Amoraim expounded upon and clarified the oral law after its initial codification. The first Babylonian Amoraim were Abba Arika, respectfully referred to as Rav, among the earliest Amoraim in Israel were Rabbi Yochanan and Shimon ben Lakish. Traditionally, the Amoraic period is reckoned as seven or eight generations, the last Amoraim are generally considered to be Ravina I and Rav Ashi, and Ravina II, nephew of Ravina I, who codified the Babylonian Talmud around 500 CE. In total,761 amoraim are mentioned by name in the Jerusalem,367 of them were active in the land of Israel from around 200-350 CE, while the other 394 lived in Babylonia during 200-500 CE. The following is a listing of the most prominent of the Amoraim mentioned in the Talmud. More complete listings may be provided by some of the links below. Abba Arika, known as Rav, last Tanna, first Amora, moved from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia. Founder and Dean of the Yeshiva at Sura, Shmuel, disciple of Judah haNasis students and others. Dean of the Yeshiva at Nehardea, joshua ben Levi, headed the school of Lod. Bar Kappara Rav Huna, disciple of Rav and Shmuel, Dean of the Yeshiva at Sura. Rav Yehudah, disciple of Rav and Shmuel, Dean of the Yeshiva at Pumbedita. Adda bar Ahavah, disciple of Rav, hillel, son of Gamaliel III, disciple and grandson of Judah haNasi, and younger brother of Judah II. Judah II, disciple and grandson of Judah haNasi, and son, sometimes called Rabbi Judah Nesiah, and occasionally Rebbi like his grandfather. Resh Lakish, disciple of Judah haNasi, Rabbi Yannai and others, Rabbi Yochanan, disciple of Judah haNasi and Rabbi Yannai. Dean of the Yeshiva at Tiberias, primary author of the Jerusalem Talmud. Samuel ben Nahman Shila of Kefar Tamarta Isaac Nappaha Rabbah, disciple of Rav Huna, Dean of the Yeshiva at Pumbedita

5.
Gemara
–
The Gemara is the component of the Talmud comprising rabbinical analysis of and commentary on the Mishnah. After the Mishnah was published by Judah HaNasi, the work was studied exhaustively by generation after generation of rabbis in Babylonia and their discussions were written down in a series of books that became the Gemara, which when combined with the Mishnah constituted the Talmud. There are two versions of the Gemara, the Jerusalem Talmud was compiled by scholars of the Land of Israel, primarily of the academies of Tiberias and Caesarea, and was published between about 350–400 CE. The Talmud Bavli was published about 500 CE by scholars of Babylonia, primarily of the academies of Sura, Pumbedita, by convention, a reference to the Gemara or Talmud, without further qualification, refers to the Babylonian version. The main compilers were Revina and Rav Ashi, the Gemara and the Mishnah together make up the Talmud. The Talmud thus comprises two components, the Mishnah – the core text, and the Gemara – analysis and commentary which completes the Talmud, the rabbis of the Mishnah are known as Tannaim. The rabbis of the Gemara are referred to as Amoraim, the Gemara is mostly written in Aramaic, the Jerusalem Gemara in Western Aramaic and the Babylonian in Eastern Aramaic, but both contain portions in Hebrew. Sometimes the language changes in the middle of a story, in a narrow sense, the word Gemara refers to the mastery and transmission of existing tradition, as opposed to sevara, which means the deriving of new results by logic. Both activities are represented in the Gemara as a literary work, the analysis of the Amoraim is generally focused on clarifying the positions, words and views of the Tannaim. These debates and exchanges form the building-blocks of the gemara, the name for such a passage of gemara is a sugya, a sugya will typically comprise a detailed proof-based elaboration of the Mishna. Every aspect of the Mishnaic text is treated as a subject of close investigation and this analysis is aimed at an exhaustive understanding of the Mishnas full meaning. In the Talmud, a sugya is presented as a series of hypotheses and questions – with the Talmudic text as a record of each step in the process of reasoning. The Gemara thus takes the form of a dialectical exchange, the disputants here are termed the makshan and tartzan. The gemara records the semantic disagreements between Tannaim and Amoraim, some of these debates were actually conducted by the Amoraim, though many of them are hypothetically reconstructed by the Talmuds redactors. The distinctive character of the gemara derives largely from the use of argumentation and debate. In each sugya, either participant may cite scriptural, Mishnaic and Amoraic proof to build a support for their respective opinions. The process of deduction required to derive a conclusion from a prooftext is often logically complex, confronted with a statement on any subject, the Talmudic student will proceed to raise a series of questions before he satisfies himself of having understood its full meaning. The actual debate will usually centre on the categories, Why does the Mishna use one word rather than another

6.
Jerusalem Talmud
–
The Jerusalem Talmud, also known as the Palestinian Talmud or Talmuda de-Eretz Yisrael, is a collection of Rabbinic notes on the second-century Jewish oral tradition known as the Mishnah. Naming this version of the Talmud after Palestine or Land of Israel rather than Jerusalem is considered accurate by some because, while the work was certainly composed in the West. The Jerusalem Talmud predates its counterpart, the Babylonian Talmud, by about 200 years, the word Talmud itself is often defined as instruction. Both versions of the Talmud comprise two parts, the Mishnah, which was finalized by Judah the Prince around the year 200 CE, the Gemara is what differentiates the Jerusalem Talmud from its Babylonian counterpart. The Jerusalem Gemara contains the discussions of generations of rabbis in the Land of Israel. 350-400 CE into a series of books, the Babylonian Gemara, which is the second recension of the Mishnah, was compiled by the scholars of Babylonia, and was completed c. The Babylonian Talmud is often seen as authoritative and is studied much more than the Jerusalem Talmud. In general, the terms Gemara or Talmud, without further qualification, the remaining scholars who lived in the Galilee area decided to continue their teaching activity in the learning centers that had existed since Mishnaic times. The Jerusalem Talmud probably originated in Tiberias in the School of Johanan bar Nappaha and it is a compilation of teachings of the schools of Tiberias, Sepphoris and Caesarea. It is written largely in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, a Western Aramaic variety that differs from its Babylonian counterpart and this Talmud is a synopsis of the analysis of the Mishnah that was developed over the course of nearly 200 years by the Talmudic Academies in Syria Palaestina. Because of their location, the sages of these Academies devoted considerable attention to analysis of the laws of the Land of Israel. Traditionally, the redaction of this Talmud was thought to have brought to an abrupt end around 425. In recent years scholars have come to doubt the causal link between the abolition of the Nasi and the seeming incompletion of the final redaction. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, Yerushalmi has not been preserved in its entirety, large portions of it were entirely lost at an early date, while other parts exist only in fragments. Of the four used for this first edition, only one is now in existence. Of the six orders of the Mishnah, the fifth, Ḳodashim, is missing entirely from the Palestinian Talmud, while the sixth, Ṭohorot, the Leiden Jerusalem Talmud is today the only extant complete manuscript of the Jerusalem Talmud. It was copied in 1289 by Rabbi Yechiel ben Yekutiel the Physician of Rome, dūkeh, instead of rūbeh/rabah, saying with a play on words, “The members of Isses household would say in the name of Isse, Why is it called dūkeh. It is because she pounds with him. ”The Hebrew word for pound is dakh, yemenite Jews still call it dūkeh

7.
Midrash halakha
–
Midrash more generally also refers to the non-legal interpretation of the Tanakh. The phrase Midrash halakha was employed by Nachman Krochmal, the Talmudic expression being Midrash Torah = investigation of the Torah. The early halakha sought only to define the compass and scope of individual laws, asking under what circumstances of life a given rule was to be applied. The form of exegesis adopted is one of simple lexicography. A few examples will serve to illustrate the style of the older Midrash halakha and it translates the word raah displease, which is contrary to the interpretation of Rabbi Eliezer. The statement that the determination of the calendar of feasts depends wholly on the decision of the nasi,37, the defectively written otam being read as attem and the interpretation, which ye shall proclaim, being regarded as conforming to the original meaning of the phrase. 30-where according to the qere the meaning is in the city, but according to the ketib, in the city that is not walled-as referring to a city that once had walls. In a similar way it explains Lev. xi.29, hence its midrash differs from the simple exegesis of the older halakha. A few examples illustrate this difference in the method of interpretation between the older and the younger Halakah. What the older halakha regarded as the meaning of the words of the text. Both halakot regard it as self-evident that if a man is unclean, whether it be from contact with a corpse or from any other cause, he may not share in the Passover. The younger halakha, despite the dot over the ה, reads reḥoḳah, despite this difference in method, the midrashim of the older and of the younger halakha alike believed that they had sought only the true meaning of the Scriptures. Their interpretations and deductions appeared to them to be contained in the text. Hence they both have the form of Scriptural exegesis, in that each mentions the Biblical passage and the halakha that explains it, or, more correctly and it is to a law stated in this form—i. e. Collections of halakot of the second sort are the Mishnah and the Tosefta and this name they receive to distinguish them from the haggadic midrashim, since they contain halakot for the most part, although there are haggadic portions in them. In these collections the line between independent halakha and Midrash halakha is not sharply drawn, many mishnayot in the Mishnah and in the Tosefta are midrashic halakot. On the other hand, the halakhic midrashim contain independent halakot without statements of their Scriptural bases and this confusion is explained by the fact that the redactors of the two forms of halakot borrowed passages from one another. Since the halakhic Midrashim had for their purpose the exegesis of the Bible

8.
Sifra
–
Sifra is the Halakic midrash to Leviticus. It is frequently quoted in the Talmud, and the study of it followed that of the Mishnah, as appears from Tanḥuma, quoted in Or Zarua, like Leviticus itself, the midrash is occasionally called Torat Kohanim, and in two passages also Sifra debe Rab. H. Weiss, in the introduction to his Sifra edition, attempts to support, the question as to authorship has been correctly answered by Malbim, who proves in the introduction to his Sifra edition that R. Ḥiyya was the redactor of the Sifra. Indeed, as Hoffmann shows, in the three passages in which it can with certainty be said that the reference is to R. Ḥiyya, namely, Wayiḳra, Nedabah, v.5, vi. 10, Ḥiyya himself, in referring to preceding interpretations, indicates that he is the editor and it is perhaps doubtful whether Hoffmann is correct in comparing the above-mentioned passages, or the final remark of R. Joshua in Ḳinnim, with Middot ii.5. As regards the sources of Sifra, it is said in the well-known passage Sanh and that the Sifra belongs to R. Akivas school, as the above-mentioned passage in Sanhedrin indicates, is shown by the principles of exposition contained in the Sifra, e. g. Certain peculiarities of phraseology are likewise noteworthy, יכול replaces שומע אני or אקרא, the phrases usually found in the Mekilta, comp. Further הא כיצד, וכי איזה מדה מרובה, ואם נפשך לומר, וכי מאין יצאת מכלל שנאמר, וכי מאין באת, traces of R. Judahs influence are less evident. The fact that the views expressed in some seṭamot may be proved to agree with R. Judahs views has little significance, e. g. Sifra, Aḥare,5, beginning, compared with Menahot 27b, ib. Such seṭamot may be opposed by others that contradict R. Judahs views, e. g. Sifra,1, compared with R. Judah in Neg. ii. 8, compared with R. Judah, Neg. x, all this, however, is no reason for attacking the above-mentioned assumption that the Sifra in its principal parts is a midrash of R. Judahs. 4 et seq. agrees with R. Eliezers view, aside from R. Judahs midrash, R. Ḥiyya may have used also R. Simeons midrash, although some of the passages mentioned there seem to prove little. More doubtful is the relation to R, but to R. Ishmaels school undoubtedly belong the later additions to Arayot, which, according to Ḥag. i.1 and Yer. 1b, were not publicly taught in R. Akivas school, i. e. Aḥare,14, and finally, of course, the so-called Baraita de-Rabbi Yishmael. The so-called Mekilta de-Milluim or Aggadat Milluim to Lev. viii, 1-10 is similarly to be distinguished from the remainder of the Sifra. It exists in two recensions, of which the second, covering mishnayot 14-16 and 29-end, is cited by Rashi as Baraita ha-Nosefet al Torat Kohanim she-Lanu, the Sifra was divided, according to an old arrangement, into 9 dibburim and 80 parashiyyot or smaller sections. As it exists today it is divided into 14 larger sections and again into smaller peraḳim, parashiyyot, the Sifra frequently agrees with the Judean rather than with the Babylonian tradition, e. g. Sifra, Nedabah, xii. Sheḳ. i.7 likewise agrees with the Sifra. g. in Sifra, Ḳedoshim,1 מאתכם is not a later emendation for מאתן according to Yeb

9.
Sifre
–
Sifre refers to either of two works of Midrash halakhah, or classical Jewish legal Biblical exegesis, based on the biblical books of Bamidbar and Devarim. The title Sifre debe Rab is used by R. Hananeel on Sheb, 37a, Alfasi on Pes. x. and Rashi on Hos. ii. 1, while citing a passage taken from Sifrei on Numbers 25,1, 9b, where, as Berliner says in his edition of Rashi, p.372, בספרא is an error for בספרי, comp. Arukh, s. v. ארבע, where he cites Sifrei on Deuteronomy 6, in regard to the reference in Sanh. Z. D. Hoffmann has correctly defined the relation between the two in his Zur Einleitung in die Halachischen Midraschim, the Sifre to Numbers is evidently a midrash which originated in R. Ishmaels school, and which has all the peculiarities and characteristics of such a work. It follows the principles of exposition as does the Mekilta, the same group of tannaim appears. There are also many points of similarity with the Mekilta. Mishpaṭim,6, Sifre 65 with Mek,15, Sifre 142 with ib.5. The haggadic portions likewise contain many parallel passages, the explanation given in the Sifre to Numbers thus contradicts the explanation in Soṭah 31a and in Sifre, Deut. The Babylonian Talmud, which evidently does not know R. Ishmaels view, but the baraita must in fact be interpreted in the opposite sense, namely, as following the view of R. Ishmael, who, because עד always implies two, as appears from Yer. Soṭah 20d, demands also in the case of a woman charged with two witnesses of the alleged crime. The passage introduced by the phrase סתם ספרי = an anonymous Sifre, likewise echoes R. Ishmaels views, and the same is true of Sifre 21 as compared with Sifre 7. The beginning of Sifre 7 appears to be, strangely enough, Sifre 39 likewise follows R. Ishmaels view, according to Ḥul. Among the tannaim appearing in the Sifre to Numbers are, R. Ishmael and his pupils R. Josiah and R. Jonathan R. Nathan Abba Hanan R. Eliezer R. Akiva and his pupils R. Simeon and R. Judah Less frequently, R. Meïr and R. Jose Rebbi also is mentioned here. Bathyra, who, as D. Hoffmann says, is frequently mentioned in midrashic works from R. Ishmaels school than in any others. A sentence of the amora Samuel b, the Sifre to Deuteronomy is of an entirely different nature. The main portion, halakic in character, is preceded and followed by haggadic parts, the principles underlying the exposition are the same as those in Sifra

10.
Sifri Zutta
–
Sifre Zutta is a midrash on the Book of Numbers. Medieval authors mention it under the titles Sifre shel Panim Aḥerim and Wi-Yeshalleḥu Ẓuta, the Sifre Zuṭa has not been preserved, and, as appears from a remark of Abraham Bakrat, it was no longer extant at the time in which he wrote his commentary on Rashi. However, fragments of the Sifre Zutta have been discovered in the Cairo Geniza, earlier authors knew of it and occasionally quoted it, e. g. R. Samson of Sens in his commentary on the mishnaic orders Zeraim and Ṭohorot. Numerous fragments are found in Yalḳuṭ Shimoni to Book of Numbers, quotations are found also in Num. R. to Naso, as A. Epstein has pointed out, maimonides frequently drew upon the Sifre Zuṭa in his Yad ha-Ḥazaḳah also, and other medieval authors who occasionally quoted it are mentioned by Brüll. The Midrash ha-Gadol to Numbers quotes the part of the Sifre Zuṭa. Around 1900, Königsberger began to edit the Sifre Zuṭa on the basis of the extracts in the Midrash ha-Gadol, a small fragment of the Sifre has been published by S. Schechter in J. Q. R. vi. The Sifre Zuṭa belongs to R. Akivas school, as is indicated by the method of exposition,21, of the partitive מן, ib. xv. 19, and of the ו, ib. v.2,1, and the term לאמר as in Sifra, Emor, vii. Furthermore, some of the views expressed in the Sifre Zuṭa correspond with views known to be R. Akivas, as in v.14, soṭah 3a, and in v.15, with which comp. The midrash may be assigned to R. Simeon rather than to R. Judah, as is done in the case of the Sifra, although some of the anonymous halakot, as v.15. 4, express the views of the latter, R. Simeons authorship is indicated by the fact that he is mentioned least often in the midrash, and that of the later tannaim R. Eleazar b. Simeon is mentioned a few times, further evidence is presented by the correspondence of various halakot with R. Simeons views. Aside from the passages quoted by D. Hoffmann, some of which represent Simeons views more exactly than others—the parallel between v.7 and Mek. Mishpaṭim,15 is doubtful, on account of the different readings in the Mekilta—still others must be taken into account, e. g. Sifre Zuṭa v.21 compared with Tosef. 20, with Nazir 46a, and, what is especially characteristic, noteworthy are the terms אין במשמע אלא and אמרת for תל, which are known to have been used by Eliezer b. The fact that Rebbi is not mentioned leads Hoffmann to the conclusion that the Sifre Zuṭa was not edited by a pupil of Rebbi, some tannaim are mentioned therein whose names are not found elsewhere, e. g. Simeon ben Neḥunyon and Papyas of Ono. By 1900, the Sifre Zuṭa had not yet thoroughly studied

11.
Mekilta le-Sefer Devarim
–
The Mekhilta le-Sefer Devarim is a halakic midrash to Deuteronomy from the school of Rabbi Ishmael which is no longer extant. No midrash by this name is mentioned in Talmudic literature, nor do the authors refer to such a work. But there are circumstances which prove that there was once such a work. Many midrashic baraitot to Deuteronomy are introduced in the Talmud with the words Tena debe R. Yishmael, 124b quotes a passage to a verse in Deuteronomy from the Shear Sifre de-Be Rab, a term by which the Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael is designated. This clearly indicates there was a midrash to Deuteronomy by R. Ishmael at the period of the Amoraim. This work, which was called also Mekilta, disappeared at an early date, the editor of the Midrash ha-Gadol, however, knew it and included many passages from it in his collection. It appears from these passages that this midrash contained much valuable material from the earlier halakic exegetes, especially noteworthy is the statement that R. Simon Gamaliel, together with R. Johanan b. Zakkai, addressed a letter to the Galileans and other communities. Hoffmanns collection of extracts from the Mekilta includes also many quotations from Maimonides Yad, hildesheimer, German part, pp. 83-98, Berlin,1890. This article incorporates text from a now in the public domain, Isidore Singer. New York, Funk & Wagnalls Company

12.
Aggadah
–
Aggadah refers to non-legalistic exegetical texts in the classical rabbinic literature of Judaism, particularly as recorded in the Talmud and Midrash. In general, Aggadah is a compendium of texts that incorporates folklore, historical anecdotes, moral exhortations. In terms of etymology, the cognate Hebrew, הַגָּדָה‎, means telling, while the Aramaic root אגד has the implication of “expanding” / “drawing out”. The root also has the flow, and here relates to the transmission of ideas. The Aggadah is part of Judaisms Oral law —the traditions providing the authoritative interpretation of the Written Law. In this context, the widely held view in rabbinic literature is that the aggadah is in fact a medium for the transmission of teachings or for explanations of verses in the Tanakh. In Rabbinic thought, therefore, much of the Aggadah is understood as containing a hidden, allegorical dimension, in addition to its overt, literal sense. Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, the Ramchal, discusses this two-tiered and he explains that the Oral Law, in fact, comprises two components, the legal component, discussing the mitzvot and halakha, and the secret component, discussing the deeper teachings. The aggadah, along with the Kabbalah, falls under the latter, the rabbis of the Mishnaic era believed that it would be dangerous to record the deeper teachings in explicit, mishnah-like, medium. Rather, they would be conveyed in a mode and via paradoxes. As regards this, Maimonides, in his preface to the chapter of Tractate Sanhedrin. The first approach is to accept the Aggadah as literally true, without admission of any hidden, Maimonides is dismissive of this approach. The second approach is to assume that anything said by the Sages was intended literally, Maimonides does not entirely reject rationalist interpretation, but he opposes an exegetical approach which denies the Aggadah a hidden rationality. The third approach is to recognise that many Aggadot are intended to teach profound truths, thus any impossible assertion was, in fact, intended as a parable, further, where aggadot can be understood literally, they may be taken on this level. This is, in general, the view of the Rabbis and it is proper…to carefully analyse …when any of these seem far-fetched we must immerse ourselves in the various branches of knowledge until we understand the concepts. The aggadah is today recorded in the Midrash and the Talmud, throughout the Talmud, aggadic and halakhic material are interwoven—legal material comprises around 90%. The Talmudic aggada, generally, convey the deeper teachings—though in concealed mode, the aggadic material in the Babylonian Talmud is also presented separately in Ein Yaakov, a compilation of the Aggadah together with commentaries. Well-known works interpreting the Aggadot in the Talmud include, Chiddushei Aggados by Samuel Edels the Maharsha, Chiddushei Aggados by Judah Loew the Maharal

13.
Seder Olam Rabbah
–
Seder Olam Rabbah is a 2nd-century CE Hebrew language chronology detailing the dates of biblical events from the Creation to Alexander the Greats conquest of Persia. It adds no stories beyond what is in the text, and addresses such questions as the age of Isaac at the binding. Tradition considers it to have written about 160 CE by Yose ben Halafta, which is not unreasonable. In the Babylonian Talmud this chronicle is several times referred to simply as the Seder Olam, in its present form the Seder Olam Rabbah consists of 30 chapters, each 10 chapters forming a section, or gate. The work is a record, extending from Adam to the revolt of Bar Kokba in the reign of Hadrian. The chronicle is complete only up to the time of Alexander the Great, many passages quoted in the Talmud are missing in the edition of the Seder Olam which has survived. The author probably designed the work for calendrical purposes, to determine the era of the creation, his system, in many cases, however, he gave the dates according to tradition, and inserted, besides, the sayings and halakot of preceding rabbis and of his contemporaries. The application of these principles would obviously have had the effect of compressing the Biblical chronology, the following examples will illustrate the manner in which these principles are applied. The confusion of languages in Genesis is said to have taken place in the days of Peleg, here Biblical chronology presents many difficulties, dates not being clearly given, and in many cases the Seder Olam was used by the later Biblical commentators as a basis of exegesis. Thus, it is known that from the entry of the Israelites into the Holy Land to the time of Jephthah a period of 300 years elapsed. It is further stated that Solomon began to build the Temple in Jerusalem in the year of his reign,480 years after the Exodus. Thus there was a period of 140 years from the year of Jephthah to the building of the Temple. Consequently, there was a period of 83 years from the year of Jephthah to the death of Eli, who ruled 40 years. The chronology of the Kings was more difficult, as there were differences to reconcile between the book of Kings and book of Chronicles. Here especially the author applied the principle of fragments of years, in the 20th chapter, which closes the second part, the author deals with the forty-eight prophets that flourished in the land of Israel. Beginning with Joshua, the reviews the whole prophetic period which terminated with Haggai, Zechariah. Thus, the mentioned in Judges vi.8 was, according to the Seder Olam, Phinehas. The prophecy of Obadiah occurred in the time of Amaziah, King of Judah, and those of Joel, Nahum, and Habakkuk in the reign of Manasseh

14.
Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva
–
Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva is a Midrash on the names of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Two versions or portions of the same are known to exist and it is based upon Gen. R. i. and Cant. Then Shin, as the letter of Shem and Shaddai, puts in its claim. Resh as the letter of rosh and of Raḥum next makes its demands. Next comes Ḳoph, as the beginning of Ḳadosh, but it is also the first letter of Ḳelalah, so all the rest complain, each having some claim, which is, however, at once refuted, until Beth, the initial letter of berakah, is chosen. This competition is followed by an explanation of the form of the various letters and by interpretations of the different compositions of the alphabet, AT BSH, AḤS BṬA. Version B is a compilation of allegoric and mystic Aggadahs suggested by the names of the various letters, Beth suggests house, blessing, contemplation, which is prized as superior to the study of the Law. Gimel suggests gemilut ḥasadim, especially Gods benevolence, and the rain of Gods mercy, daled suggests care for the poor. He recalls Gods name, as does Waw Zayin represents the key of sustenance in Gods hand, here follows a chapter on Hell and Paradise continued in Ḥeth = ḥeṭ = sin. Ṭeth suggests ṭiṭ, the clay of earth, and hence, resurrection Yod suggests the reward of the righteous Kaph, the clapping of hands, both versions are given as a unit in the Amsterdam edition of 1708, as they probably originally belonged together. Version A shows more unity of plan, and, as Jellinek has shown, is older and it is directly based upon, if not coeval with, Shab. 104a, according to which the school-children in the time of Joshua ben Levi were taught in such forms which at the same time suggested moral lessons. Jellinek even thinks that the Midrash was composed with the view of acquainting the children with the alphabet, while the Shabuot festival furnished as themes God, Torah, Israel, and Moses. Jellinek has shown the time of its composition to be modern, as is evidenced by the Arabic form of the letters. It was on account that the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva was made an object of severe attack and ridicule by Solomon ben Jeroham. Version A was likewise known to Judah Hadassi, the Karaite, as to Rabbi Akivas authorship, this is claimed by the writers of both versions, who begin their compositions with the words, R. Akiva hath said. R. i. he and Rabbi Eliezer as youths already knew how to derive meaning from the double form of the letters. This version is published in Jellineks B. H. v. 31-33, bloch, in Winter and Wünsches Jüd

15.
Baraita of the Forty-nine Rules
–
The Baraita of the Forty-nine Rules is a work of rabbinical literature which is no longer in existence except in references by later authorities. Rashi, the Tosafists, Abraham ibn Ezra, Yalḳut, and Asher ben Jehiel mention a work, Baraita of the Forty-nine Rules, ibn Ezra mentions R. Nathan as the author of the Baraita. On this observation, Zunz based the conjecture that this lost work of R, from the few fragments of this Baraita preserved by the above-mentioned authors, only one fact pertaining to its character can be ascertained, viz. If from these short fragments an opinion could be formed concerning the composition of the Baraita, against Zunzs opinion, compare Eliakim Milsahagi RABIH, pp. 4b, 7b. Steinschneider believed that he had put an end to all conjecture concerning the Baraita through a happy find. Were this the case, the Baraita would be a product of the 9th or, at the earliest, of the 8th century, but Steinschneiders assumption can hardly be supported. 30-31,1898, idem, Sefer ha-Liḳḳutim, ii.3 et seq. Zunz, Schapira, 25-30, A. Epstein, in Ha-Ḥoker, i.35. Jewish Encyclopedia article for Baraita of the Forty-nine Rules, by Marcus Jastrow and this article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain, Singer, Isidore, et al. eds. New York, Funk & Wagnalls Company

16.
Baraita on the Thirty-two Rules
–
The Baraita on the Thirty-two Rules or Baraita of R. Eliezer ben Jose ha-Gelili is a baraita giving 32 hermeneutic rules for interpreting the Bible. It no longer exists, except in references by later authorities, abul-Walid ibn Janaḥ is the oldest authority who drew upon this Baraita, but he did not mention it by name. Rashi makes frequent use of it in his commentaries on the Bible and he either briefly calls it the thirty-two rules or designates it as the Baraita of R. Eliezer b. Also the Karaite Judah Hadassi, who incorporated it in his Eshkol ha-Kofer, the beraita has not been preserved in an independent form, and knowledge of it has been gathered only from the recension transmitted in the methodological work Keritot, by Samson of Chinon. The beginning of the Baraita in this recension reads as follows, Jose ha-Gelili, make a funnel of your ear. There are strong grounds for the supposition that the sentence of the Baraita ran, R. Eliezer. This is the reading of Joshua ha-Levi and Isaiah Horowitz, consequently, no adequate reasons exist for doubting the authorship of R. Eliezer. In Vol. XXIII of the Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, Moshe Zucker sought to prove, from Geniza documents, Hofni Gaon as part of the introduction to his commentary to the Torah. This conclusion has been challenged by A. Greenbaum, The Biblical Commentary of Samuel ben Hofni Gaon, distinction must, however, be made between two different constituent elements of the Baraita. In these 32 sections sayings are cited of the Tannaim R. Akiva, R. Ishmael, R. Jose, R. Nehemiah, R. Nehorai, Rebbi, Ḥiyyah, and of the amoraim Johanan and Jose b. Although these names, especially the last two, show that portions of the Baraita were interpolated long after Eliezer b, Jose, yet no general conclusions may be drawn from it with regard to the whole work. The terminology is prevailingly tannaitic, even in the second portion, W. Bacher correctly remarks that the exclusively tannaitic expression zeker le-dabar is found at the end of section ix. The second part, therefore, leaving later interpolations out of consideration, may also have sprung from the tannaitic period, probably from the school of R. Eliezer. It is noteworthy that the old scholars make citations from the Baraita that are not found in its present form, the 32 rules are those applied in haggadic interpretations. Such treatment is of first importance for the interpretation of the Scriptures, the Baraita, then, written about 150 CE, may be regarded as the earliest work on Biblical hermeneutics, since Philos fantastic allegories can hardly be regarded as such. Following are two examples from the Baraita, which illustrate its method,5 reads, I have gone from tent to tent, and from tabernacle. It should read, and from tabernacle to tabernacle, but the Bible here employs ellipsis, section xxi. says that sometimes a clause that ought to stand at the end of sentences, conveying one idea, is interposed between them. Thus, the place for verse 17 of Psalm xxxiv. would be after 18

17.
Pesikta de-Rav Kahana
–
Pesikta de-Rab Kahana is a collection of Aggadic midrash which exists in two editions, those of Solomon Buber and Bernard Mandelbaum. It is cited in the Aruk and by Rashi, the term pesikta is an Aramaic cognate of the Hebrew pasuk or verse. The position of the Rosh Hashana section as the first pesikta is also attested by the Aruk, according to the arrangement in this edition the homilies fall into three groups, Pentateuchal, Prophetic, and Tishri, piskot. An unnumbered other piskah to Isa,61,10, after two manuscripts, is printed after No. Piskot Nos.12 and 32 each consist really of two homilies, but the second homily in No.27 does not belong to the Pesikta. These twelve homilies are designated by an old abbreviation as דשח נוע ארק שדש, another manuscript, entitled Haftarah Midrash, contains only these homilies, with the exception of next to the last one. Entire homilies of the Pesikta have been taken over, or sometimes worked over, into the Pesikta Rabbati, Leviticus Rabbah also contains some of the homilies found in Pesikta. The parashiyyot 20, 27-30 in Leviticus Rabbah are, with the exception of a few differences, zunz takes the Pesikta to be dependent on Leviticus Rabbah, assigning this midrash to the middle of the 7th century, but the Pesikta to the year 700. But other authorities regard the Pesikta as the earliest midrash collection, undoubtedly the core content of the Pesikta is very old, and must be classed together with Genesis Rabbah and Lamentations Rabbah. According to Strack & Stemberger, the text of the current Pesikta was probably not finally fixed until its first printing, zunz gives a date of composition of 700 CE, but other factors argue for a date of composition in 5th or early 6th century. Came into use, this cycle is not mentioned in Talmudic times and this article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain, Singer, Isidore, et al. eds. article name needed. New York, Funk & Wagnalls Company, introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, ISBN 978-0-8006-2524-5. Braude, W G, Pesikta Derab Kahana, Jewish Publication Society of America,2 edition, Jewish Encyclopedia article for Haggadic Midrashim, by Isidore Singer and J. Theodor. Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, Solomon Buber edition, scanned, PDF, at the daat. ac. il web site Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, Mandelbaum edition, scanned, PDF

18.
Esther Rabbah
–
Esther Rabbah is the midrash to the Book of Esther in the current Midrash editions. 5, and in the Venice edition of 1545 each has at the end the words selika parashata and this division was probably based on the sections of the Esther roll, as indicated by the closed paragraphs, such paragraphs existing in the present text to i. 4, as well as the lack of a beginning to i,16, may be due to differences in the division of the text. It may furthermore be assumed that a new parashah began with the section Esther iii,1, where several poems precede the comment of the midrash. From this point onward there is hardly a trace of further division into chapters, there is no new parashah even to Esther vi. 1, the climax of the Biblical drama, the various paragraphs that follow chapter viii. Seem to have been merely tacked on, the Book of Esther early became the subject of comment in the schoolhouses, as may be seen from Megillah 10b et seq. where long haggadic passages are joined to single verses. The midrash under consideration is variously connected with these passages, the author of Esther Rabbah often draws directly upon the Yerushalmi, Bereshit Rabbah, Wayikra Rabbah, Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer, Targumim, and other ancient sources. Bereshit Rabbah or Wayikra Rabbah may also have furnished the long passage in parashah i. in connection with the explanation of the first word. According to Strack & Stemberger, the midrash may be considered to be composed of two different parts which were combined in the 12th or 13th century. An older part characterized by non-anonymous proems, originating in Palestine around 500 CE, which material from Talmud Yerushalmi, Genesis Rabbah. This part is then cited in such works as Ecclesiastes Rabbah. A younger part drawing from Yosippon, which may be dated to the 11th century, in any case, this midrash may be considered older and more original than the Midrash Abba Gorion to the Book of Esther. The Yalkut Shimoni quotes many passages from the midrash, as well as from another haggadic commentary. The midrash here considered is entitled Midrash Megillat Esther in the Venice edition, nahmanides quotes it as the Haggadah to the Esther roll. It may be assumed with certainty that it is of Judean origin and this article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain, Singer, Isidore, et al. eds. article name needed. New York, Funk & Wagnalls Company, the JE cites the following works, Zunz, G. V. pp.264 et seq. Weiss, Dor, iii. 209, A. Jellinek, B. H. i, winter and Wünsche, Die Jüdische Litteratur, i.554 et seq. a German transl. of the Midrash in Wünsche, Bibl

19.
Midrash Iyyob
–
Midrash Iyyob or Midrash to Job is an aggadic midrash that is no longer extant. Extracts with express reference to the source Midrash Iyyob are found to Job i, the extracts found in the Yalḳuṭ Makiri to Ps. li.7 and Ps. cxlvi. 4 with the source-reference Midrash and referring to Job iii.2,1, are, perhaps, likewise taken from the Midrash Iyyob, as are many passages in the Job commentaries of Samuel b. The extracts and quotations from Midrash Iyyob have been collected by Wertheimer, strack & Stemberger cite an opinion attributing Midrash Iyyov to the amora Hoshaiah Rabbah, although this dating is uncertain. According to Zunz, there are evidences of the existence of midrashim to Ezra, for the Midrash al Yithallel, to Jer. ix.22 and to the Hallel Midrash, see Smaller Midrashim. This article incorporates text from a now in the public domain, Singer, Isidore. New York, Funk & Wagnalls Company, introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, ISBN 978-0-8006-2524-5

20.
Seder Olam Zutta
–
Seder Olam Zutta is an anonymous chronicle from 804 CE, called Zuṭta to distinguish it from the older Seder Olam Rabbah. This work is based upon, and to a certain extent completes and continues and it is apparent that the object of this work was to show that the Babylonian exilarchs were direct descendants of David. The Seder Olam Zuṭa is more complete at this point than the larger work and it gives also the lifetime of each of Jacobs twelve sons as recorded by tradition. Otherwise it merely enumerates the generations, from David onward it gives the names of the high priests and prophets who lived in the time of each king. But in I Chronicles only five priests are enumerated, whose names are not found at all among those given by the Seder Olam Zuṭa. The author of the work divided these 50 generations into five series, each of 10 generations, the last of series being, respectively, Noah, Abraham, Boaz, Ahaziah. The second part of the work begins with the statement that Jehoiachin and he was afterward given high rank by Evil-merodach, thus becoming the first prince of the Captivity. Correcting the somewhat confused genealogical account of 1 Chronicles 3, 17-19, the Seder Olam Zuṭa declares that Jehoiachin had four sons, the eldest of whom was Shealtiel, who succeeded his father. Then the chronicle enumerates the successive exilarchs, the account being in part taken from 1 Chronicles 3,16 et seq. but differing greatly from the text of the latter. In fact, the first, 13th, 16th, 18th, and 19th exilarchs (the last one being Shaphat, not as immediate successors, but as related individuals, and in contemporaneous groups. Sometimes, too, the father in I Chronicles is the son in the Seder Olam Zuṭa. With the deaths of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—more exactly, in the 52nd year of the Persian domination, or year 3442 of the creation—prophecy ceased, from Hananiah onward every exilarch is indicated as having been guided by wise men. The names of the kings that reigned over Judea from Alexander the Great to Roman Palaestina during the destruction of the Second Temple are given, like the Seder Olam Rabbah, this chronicle gives the reigns of the Maccabees and the Herods as covering 103 years each. Further, from Nahum, the 17th exilarch, the names are given of the men, probably the chiefs of the academy. With Rab Huna, 29th exilarch, the male line of descent from David terminated. The exilarchs following are stated to have descendants of Rab Huna through his daughter, the wife of R. Hananiah. After having stated that Mar-Zutra II, the 13th exilarch, was executed in the year 502 C. E, apart from certain misstatements, this part contains many authenticated facts, and is therefore considered by modern scholars as a document of historical value. It may be seen that the lives of 31 exilarchs covered a period of more than 900 years, averaging three exilarchs to a century

21.
Tanhuma
–
Midrash Tanhuma is the name given to three different collections of Pentateuch aggadot, two are extant, while the third is known only through citations. These midrashim, although bearing the name of R. Tanḥuma and they were so named merely because they consist partly of homilies originating with him and partly of homilies by aggadic teachers who followed the style of R. Tanḥuma. It is possible that R. Tanḥuma himself preserved his homilies, the three collections were edited at different times, they will, therefore, be treated in chronological order. Tanḥuma A, also called Tanchuma Buber, is the published by S. Buber. Buber postulated that this midrash was edited in the 5th century, Buber cites a passage in the Babylonian Talmud that seems to indicate that the redactor of that work had referred to the Midrash Tanḥuma. Other scholars disagree, however, and do not see the Buber recension of Tanchuma as being older than the other versions, townsend cites a section from Bubers recension which appears to be a quote from Rav Sheriras Sheiltot. This passage says that two amoraim differed in their interpretations of the words and looked after Moses, until he was gone into the tabernacle. One amora interpreted the words in a sense, while the other held that the people looked after Moses. The favorable interpretation only is given in the Talmud, while the adverse opinion is referred to with the words ki de-ita, the homilies contained in Midrash Tanḥuma A begin with the words As the Scriptures say or sometimes As it is written. Then follow a verse, its explanation, and a homily on the passage of the Pentateuch referred to. Several of the homilies on the first, third, and fourth books of the Pentateuch begin with brief halakic dissertations bearing on the passages to which the homilies refer, although essentially an aggadic midrash, Tanḥuma A contains many halakic sayings. In addition to its 61 introductions to homilies, which contain halakic questions and answers, there are several halakic rules and decisions quoted throughout the work. These halakic passages were taken from the Mishnah or the Baraita, some of the aphorisms and proverbs may be cited here, One may not give an honest man an opportunity to steal, much less a thief. The office seeks those that would escape it, if you yield not to wickedness it will not follow you nor dwell by you. Do the wicked no good in order that thou reap not that which is evil, the Geonim also and the older rabbinical authorities made use of it, and cited halakic as well as aggadic sentences from it. The first to refer to this midrash by the name of Tanḥuma, however, was Rashi, who mentions it in several passages of his commentary, most of Rashis quotations are taken from Tanḥuma A. It is referred to also under the name of Tanḥuma, though by only a few authorities, as Hai Gaon and Zedekiah ben Abraham. The Yelammedenu, which several passages from Tanḥuma A, is often cited in the Aruk

22.
Megillat Antiochus
–
Megillat Antiochus recounts the story of Hanukkah and the history of the victory of the Maccabees over the Seleucid Empire. Early texts of the work exist in both Aramaic and Hebrew, but the Hebrew version is a translation from the Aramaic original. In 1557 it was first published in Mantua, in northern Italy, the Hebrew text, with an English translation, can be found in the Siddur of Philip Birnbaum. The first known printed text is found in a Siddur from Salonika, then part of the Ottoman Empire, the original Aramaic text can also be found in old Yemenite Baladi-rite Prayer Book from the 17th century. There are several theories as to the works authorship, some scholars date Megillat Antiochus to somewhere between the 2nd and 5th centuries, with the greater likelihood of it being composed in the 2nd Century. The scroll is first mentioned by Simeon Kayyara in Halakhot Gedolot, wherein he claims that the scroll was compiled by the elders of the School of Shammai and the elders School of Hillel. Another opinion is that of Saadia Gaon who holds that the Scroll of Antiochus was composed in the Chaldaic language by the Hasmonaeans themselves and he translated it into Arabic in the 9th Century. Hakham Moses Gaster argued for a 1st-century BCE date, the Mahzor of the Kaffa Rite from the year 1735 gives the order to read the Megillat Antiochus in the Mincha of Shabbat Hanukkah. It still forms part of the liturgy of the Yemenite Jews, the Books of the Maccabees are entirely different from this work. The rest of the books bear this name because other heroic deeds are recounted there, moreover, 1-4 Maccabees survives only in Greek. 1 Maccabees was probably composed in Hebrew, the other three books of the Maccabees were originally written in Greek. There was in it to light for one day, but the God of heaven whose name dwells there put therein his blessing and they were able to light from it eight days. In them, it is not permitted to mourn, neither to decree a fast, and anyone who has a vow to perform, let him perform it. ”

23.
Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer
–
Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer is an aggadic-midrashic work on the Torah containing exegesis and retellings of biblical stories. The composition enjoyed widespread circulation and recognition throughout Jewish history, leopold Zunz has suggested that the book has had interpolations made to copies owned by private citizens in the 8th century. Isaak Jost first noticed the inclusion of 8th century interpolations, the topic of chapters one and two of the composition is the beginnings of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanus, it is due to them that medieval sages attributed the entire work to him. However, Zunz conclusively proved that this traditional ascription is not historically accurate and this is further proved by one manuscript which places the title “Pirkei R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanus” and begins the chapter numbering only after chapter two. Nevertheless, it is critical to note that both chapters are found in all manuscripts of the composition, which increases the likelihood that they have always been part of the composition. Furthermore, examination of the language of these chapters also points to the fact that these chapters are considered part of the composition. PRE contains distinct literary phrases which appear and reappear throughout the entire work, there is a complex problem about the completeness of the composition. Zunz detected two literary structures around which the author of PRE has organized his composition, but which are not complete in the composition as it is known to us today. A) At the beginning of chapter fourteen there is a list of ten times that God descended into the world and these “descents” are expounded upon in various places throughout the work. However, the last descent to appear is the eighth, the two are missing. B) From chapter twenty-six and onwards, several chapters conclude with a blessing from the Shemoneh Esreh prayer, alongside this possibility, Zunz raised the possibility that the work was at one point complete, but that parts of it were lost in its early period. This suggestion has found acceptance among scholars, who are in almost complete agreement that the composition as it is in our hands is missing pieces that were once in existence. However, subsequent analysis by Treitl has usually demonstrated that the ascription of these pieces of works to a more original PRE is without basis. No textual witness includes the blessing for forgiveness or redemption, chapter ten concludes with a reference to the blessing for converts, making it clearly out of place within the larger composition, which only begins referring to the blessings in chapter twenty-six. It seems therefore likely that the author of the work never succeeded in weaving all of the various blessings into the work in their correct order, the passage that concludes the composition in all of the complete manuscripts may be interpreted as referring to this situation. In this passage the author praises Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the text itself attributes the authorship of the text to Tannaim Rabbis. This would place the text, minus any interpolations or additions. If a statement in ch. xxviii, the work is ascribed to R. Eliezer, although he was a tanna, while the book itself the Pirḳe Abot is quoted

24.
Tanna Devei Eliyahu
–
Tanna Devei Eliyahu is the composite name of a midrash, consisting of two parts, whose final redaction took place at the end of the 10th century CE. The first part is called Seder Eliyahu Rabbah, the second, a distinct reference to this midrash occurs in the Talmud in Ket. 106a, Hence, according to Rashi, the midrash has the two names, Rabbah for the earlier, and Zuṭa for the later lectures, anan was a Babylonian amora of the 3rd century. The tosafot to Ketubot say that the midrash consists of a large book, the inner connection between these two midrashim is a loose one, and it is only in sections 5 to 10 that the second refers to the first. The underlying theme of the Tanna debe Eliyahu, which, with interruptions, runs through the whole work, is the evolution of the world-system. The midrash calls the single periods of the history of man shiṭṭot, the first series, which deals with the beginning of the world and extends to the moment when man was driven out of Eden, consists of two subsections, Maaseh Merkabah and Maaseh Bereshit. The six series of the world-system, however, were created in the mind even before any being, with the exception of Israel. Even before these six foundations, however, Israel was, as stated above, already in being in the divine mind, the second series embraces the period from the expulsion of man from Eden to the Flood. In the ten generations from Adam to Noah man did not adhere to meekness, did not do what was right, but fell lower and lower until he practiced violence, theft, immorality, for this reason his destruction became a necessity. The third series extends from the Flood to King Manasseh of Judah and it treats of the time of the study of the Law, of the priestly office, of the kingdom, and of the end of Israels prosperity through the evil administration of Manasseh. In the days of Abraham the period of tohu wa-bohu ceases, whoever studies the Torah receives meekness as a reward. In addition there is a second recompense, which is the Mishnah, in this introduction of the Mishnah there is a trace of apology intended for those who believe that only the Torah was delivered on Mount Sinai. The fifth series extends from King Manasseh to the building of the Second Temple, the last series treats of the future. God, surrounded by all the saints, sits in His bet ha-midrash and counts up the generations of the different periods of time, what they have learned, the future of these saints will be like the beginning of the life of man. These six series are divided into three main periods, the present world, the Messianic period, and the future world. These are subdivided into,2,000 years of confusion,2,000 years of the Torah,2,000 years of the Messiah, inauguration of a general peace, the future world. The midrash, further, attempts to prove that all life is based on the two extremes, toil in the sweat of the brow, and the regaining of the freedom of the soul. Hence it begins with the expulsion of Adam from Eden, the cherubim in Eden are identified with man, and are the symbol of the reward of well-doing, the flaming sword is hell, the punishment for evil-doing

25.
Alphabet of Sirach
–
The Alphabet of ben Sirach is an anonymous medieval text inspired by the Wisdom of Sirach. It is dated to anywhere between 700 and 1000 CE and it is a compilation of two lists of proverbs,22 in Aramaic and 22 in Hebrew, both arranged as alphabetic acrostics. Each proverb is followed by an Haggadic commentary, the work has been characterized as satirical, and it contains references to masturbation, incest and flatulence. The text has been translated into Latin, Yiddish, Judeo-Spanish, French, a partial English translation appeared in Stern and Mirsky. The Aramaic proverbs are the far part of the book. Five of them can be traced to Talmudic-Midrashic literature, the Hebrew commentary, illustrating the proverbs with fables, is much younger. In the reading of Ginzberg, Honor the Ethiop before thou hast need of him, If a son do not conduct himself like a son, gnaw the bone that falls to thy lot whether it be good or bad. Gold must be hammered, and the child must be beaten, be good and refuse not thy portion of good. Woe to the man and woe to his companions. Cast thy bread upon the waters and upon the land, for thou shalt find it after many days Hast thou seen a black ass. it was neither black nor white, bestow no good upon that which is evil, and no evil will befall thee. Restrain not thy hand from doing good, the bride enters the bridal chamber and, nevertheless, knows not what will befall her. A nod to the wise is sufficient, the fool requires a blow and he who honors them that despise him is like an ass. Rise quickly from the table and thou wilt avoid disputes, in thy business deal only with the upright. If the goods are near at hand, the owner consumes them, do not disavow an old friend. Thou mayest have sixty counselors, but do not give up thy own opinion He that was first satisfied and then hungry will offer thee his hand, the 22 Hebrew proverbs are quite different in character from the Aramaic ones, and much more recent. Half of the proverbs are borrowed from the Talmud, and are only a pretext for the presentation of a number of legends surrounding Ben Sira, Ben Sira is presented as the son of Jeremiah. Ben Siras fame reached Nebuchadnezzar, who called him to his court, Nebuchadnezzar sets forth various ordeals for Ben Sira, who responds with 22 stories. Some of the fables of the collection are indebted to Christian legend, the text is best known because of its reference to Lilith, and it is the fifth of Ben Siras responses to King Nebuchadnezzar

26.
Ecclesiastes Rabbah
–
Ecclesiastes Rabbah or Kohelet Rabbah is an haggadic commentary on Ecclesiastes, included in the collection of the Midrash Rabbot. It follows the Biblical book verse by verse, only a few verses remaining without comment, in the list of the old sedarim for the Bible four sedarim are assigned to Ecclesiastes, namely, to i. 7, and the Midrash Ḳohelet was probably divided according to these sections and this appears from the phrase Sidra tinyana inserted between the comments to Eccl. vi.12 and to vii. 1, and the phrase Sidra telitaa between the comments to Eccl. ix.6 and to ix.7. These phrases occur at the end of the second and third sections, in the same way that Seliḳ sidra indicates the end of sections in Ruth R. The commentary to iii.12 having been lost, the exposition of the conclusion of the first section is missing, nothing remains to indicate where one section ends and another begins, as there is no introductory remark to the comment on ii.13. But an introduction is also lacking to the comment on vii.1, the author confined himself chiefly to collecting and editing, and did not compose new introductions to the sections. This shows the important part which the introductions to the earlier midrashim played in the later midrashim and this, even in very early times, gave rise to a haggadic treatment of numerous passages in Ecclesiastes, which in turn furnished rich material for the compilation of the Midrash Ḳohelet. The longest passages in the Midrash Ḳohelet are the introductions to Pesiḳta and Wayiḳra Rabbah, some introductions were abbreviated, and introductions from different midrashim were combined in a comment on one passage of Ecclesiastes. For instance, the passage on Eccl. xii. 1–7 is a combination of the introduction to Wayiḳra Rabbah xviii,1 and the twenty-third introduction in Ekah Rabbati. 1,11,15,16, v.4,5,8,15, many other passages besides the introductions have been transferred from those sources to the Midrash Ḳohelet. Moreover, it contains passages in common with Ruth R. compare especially the comment on Eccl. vii.8. Abuya, with Ruth Rabbah vi. with which it agrees almost verbatim, in this case the story was not taken direct from its source in Yer. The author of the Midrash Ḳohelet of course frequently consulted the aggadah of the Jerusalem Talmud, 5a, must be considered as an addition. In the same comment on v.8, at the beginning of a proem in Wayiḳra Rabbah xxii, a modification of the passage in the latter is made which gives ample proof that the Midrash Ḳohelet was written at a later time than the other midrashic works mentioned. As Zunz assumes, the Midrash Ḳohelet belongs to the time of the middle midrashim, such repetitions are frequently found in the earlier midrashim. In Midrash Ḳohelet the same comments are found on Eccl. i.2 as on vi,13, and on vii.11 as on ix

27.
Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah
–
Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah is a Haggadic midrash on Song of Songs, quoted by Rashi under the title Midrash Shir ha-Shirim. It is called also Agadat Ḥazita, from its initial word Ḥazita, simon Duran, in quoting this midrash, says that it is a Judean haggadic collection. The sources which it uses directly are from the Jerusalem Talmud, the date of composition of this midrash cannot be exactly determined. The majority of the interpretations in the work were taken from public lectures on Canticles. This midrash is, according to Jellinek, older than the Pesiḳta de-Rab Kahana, Theodor has shown, however, that it was composed at a later date than the Pesiḳta de-Rab Kahana, from which it has borrowed entire passages. Besides the Jerusalem Talmud and the Pesiḳta de-Rab Kahana, the sources used by the redactor are Genesis Rabbah. The material borrowed from these sources constitutes a part of the midrash. The midrash is older than Pesiḳta Rabbati, since the latter borrowed passages directly from it, as the Pesiḳta Rabbati was composed about 845 C. E. Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah must have been composed about the end of the 8th century. The midrash has been edited and commented together with the other Midrash Rabbot and this article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain, Singer, Isidore, et al. eds. article name needed. New York, Funk & Wagnalls Company, zunz, G. V. pp. 274–276, Frankfort-on-the-Main,1892, J. Theodor, Zur Composition der Agadischen Homilien, in Monatsschrift,1879. Pp. 337–350, 408-418, 455-462,1880, pp. 19–23, Weiss, Dor, jewish Encyclopedia article for Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah, by Wilhelm Bacher and Jacob Zallel Lauterbach

28.
Midrash Shmuel (aggadah)
–
Midrash Samuel, an aggadic midrash on the books of Samuel, is quoted for the first time by Rashi in his commentary on I Sam. In his Ha-Pardes Rashi again quotes from this midrash, saying that it is entitled Et la-Asot la-Adonai, the midrash contains haggadic interpretations and homilies on the books of Samuel, each homily being prefaced and introduced by a verse taken from some other book of the Bible. It resembles most of the other haggadic midrashim both in diction and in style, in fact, it is a collection of found in such midrashim. The editor arranged the sentences in the sequence of the Scripture passages to which they refer, in two places only have passages been added by later copyists, ch. iv.1 and ch. xxxii. The midrash is divided into 32 chapters, contain interpretations and homilies on the First, and ch. xxv. -xxxii. On the Second, Book of Samuel, only once does he quote a sentence from Babli, which he introduces with the words Taman amrin. This, as well as the fact all the amoraim mentioned in this midrash resided in the Land of Israel. His name and the time at which he lived can not be definitely determined, Zunz assigns him to the first half of the 11th century, although the reasons which he gives for this assumption have been refuted by S. Buber. Strack & Stemberger indicate that the work was composed earlier than the 11th century, since it is cited by Samuel ben Hofni, Nissim Gaon. A manuscript of this midrash is in the Parma Library, the first printed edition of the work appeared at Constantinople in 1517 or 1522, the Hebrew date is not fully legible, but it undoubtedly refers to one of these years. It was printed again at Venice in 1546, and subsequently at various places and times, the latest and best edition prior to 1900 was that by Solomon Buber, with introduction and notes. This article incorporates text from a now in the public domain, Singer, Isidore. New York, Funk & Wagnalls Company, the JE cites the following works, Zunz, G. V. pp. 269–270, Weiss, Dor, iii. 276, S. Buber, preface to his edition of the midrash, introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, ISBN 978-0-8006-2524-5 Jewish Encyclopedia article on Midrash Samuel, by Wilhelm Bacher and Jacob Zallel Lauterbach. This article incorporates text from a now in the public domain, Singer, Isidore. New York, Funk & Wagnalls Company

29.
Baraita of Samuel
–
A Baraita of Samuel was known to Jewish scholars from Shabbethai Donolo in the 10th century to Simon Duran in the 15th century, and citations from it were made by them. It was considered as lost until around 1900, when it appeared in print. In its present form, the Baraita is composed of nine chapters, treating astronomy, the first chapter deals with the form of heaven, of Orion, of the Pleiades, of Draco, and of the planets and their light. The second and third treat of the movements of the moon, at the same time directions are given for adjusting the gnomon of a sun-dial. The fourth defines the character of the seasons and the planets, the fifth, directions are given for calculating Molad and Teḳufah. The sixth imparts the teachings of the Egyptian sages on the position of the planets. The seventh chapter mentions the exact distances of the planets from the Earth, the moon is considered the nearest, Saturn, the eighth chapter deals with the altitudes of the planets. The ninth chapter discusses the influence of the bodies on earthly affairs. It is conceded that the planets in themselves can not make for good or evil, the older scholars considered the author of the Baraita to be the amora Samuel bar Abba, who, according to the statements in the Talmud, was a great astronomer. The newer editions have Samuel ha-Ḳaṭan as the author and this is hardly based on a tradition, but rather is due to a combination of the name Samuel with Samuel ha-Ḳaṭan, who is mentioned as possessing knowledge of the Ibbur. These suggestions of names have no material value, the very contents and language of the Baraita contradict the assumption that it is the work of amoraim or tannaim. Moreover, ch. v. designates the year 4536 as the one which, with but a slight difference, the courses of the sun and moon, leap-years, and Teḳufah will repeat themselves, and calculations must begin anew from this year. The earliest date, then, at which the Baraita could have written is 776. It is more difficult to determine the latest date and this question is connected with that of the relationship of the Baraita to the Pirḳe de-Rabbi Eliezer. Some have endeavored to conclude, from citations of the Baraita by Abraham ben Ḥiyyah and Judah ha-Levi, that the Baraita and the Pirḳe de-Rabbi Eliezer originally formed one work. The portions of the Baraita now existing prove clearly that the two are different, neither diction, subject, character, nor aim of the two works bearing any resemblance. There is, however, distinct kinship between the two chapters of the Pirḳe de-Rabbi Eliezer and the Baraita of Samuel, but it cannot be decided which author borrowed from the other. In fact, there may have been a source from which both drew

30.
Targum Sheni
–
The Jewish Encyclopedia characterises the story as a genuine and exuberant midrash, i. e. a free elaboration, of a kind not unusual in Rabbinic literature. There are a number of parallels between the Targum Sheni account and the Quranic account of Solomon and the Queen in Sura 27. The ascribed date of 800 by the Encyclopaedia Judaica is post-Islamic so it may have influenced by the Quran. Nineteenth Century scholars had earlier placed the composition anywhere from the fourth to the eleventh century CE, there is controversy among scholars about the date of the Targum Sheni. S. Gelbhaus placed its authorship in the period, in the fourth century, P. Cassel dates it in the sixth century. L. Munk puts its date still later, in the 11th century, the Encyclopaedia Judaica argued for a dating of the late 7th or early 8th century. Much of the controversy centers on whether its similarities to the Quranic account supports an earlier or later dating, that is, linguistic features of the Aramaic text, including its many Greek loan words, are one of the stronger arguments in support of an earlier dating. Apocryphal Additions to Esther - Jewish Encyclopedia An explanatory commentary on Esther tr. of Cassel, Paulus, translation of Targum Sheni in appendix I

31.
Midrash Tehillim
–
49, and on many other passages. This midrash is called also Agadat Tehillim, or Haggadat Tehillim, from the 12th century it was called also Shocher Tov, because it begins with the verse Prov. xi. 27, שחר טוב יבקש רצון ודרש רעה תבואנו, etc, the true midrash covers only Ps. i. -cxviii. and this is all that is found either in the manuscripts or in the first edition. In the second edition a supplement was added covering, with the exception of two psalms, Ps. cxix. -cl, the author of this supplement was probably R. Mattithiah Yiẓhari of Zaragoza, who collected the scattered haggadot on Ps. cxix. -cl. From the Yalḳuṭ, adding comments of his own, since Ps. cxxiii. and cxxxi. are in the Yalḳuṭ, the author of the supplement included no haggadic interpretations on these two psalms. This omission has been supplied by S, the name of the editor and the date of the redaction of the true midrash cannot now be determined. The assumption that Rav Johanan or Rav Simon, the son of R. Judah ha-Nasi and it may, on the contrary, be shown that the midrash is not the work of a single editor. There are many passages containing the same thought, substantially the same haggadot appear in different forms in different passages, e. g. Ps. vii. It has been said that the date of the redaction of the midrash cannot be determined, haggadic collections on the Psalms were made at a very early time, and are mentioned several times in the Talmudim and in Genesis Rabbah, e. g. Yer. But it cannot possibly be assumed that the collections on the Psalms are identical with the present Midrash Tehillim. It can not be denied, however, that material from those old collections is included in the present midrash. It must therefore be assumed that parts of the old collections had been preserved among the later haggadists, in the course of time this collection was supplemented and enlarged by the additions of various collections and editors, until the Midrash Tehillim finally took its present form. Its definitive completion must, according to Zunz, be assigned to the last centuries of the period of the Geonim, but Zunzs assumption, that the midrash was compiled in Italy, cannot be accepted. The work was edited in Palestine, as appears from the language, style, nearly all the amoraim mentioned in it are Palestinian rabbis, and the few Babylonian amoraim referred to, e. g. R. Ḥida, are mentioned also in Yerushalmi. Buber, l. c. p.32, note 131), the midrash contains homilies on the Psalms and comments on single verses and even on single words. The homilies are as a rule introduced with the formula as Scripture says, in only a few cases are they introduced as in the other midrashim, with the formula Rabbi N. N. has begun the discourse, or Rabbi N. N. explains the Biblical passage. Among the comments on single verses are many which are based on the difference of ḳeri and ketib as well as on the variant spellings of words, plene and defective. Many words, also, are explained according to the value of the letters or by analysis of their component parts as well as by the substitution of other vowels

32.
Midrash Hashkem
–
Midrash Hashkem, also known as Midrash ve-Hizhir is a purely haggadic midrash on the Pentateuch. The first part of the Munich codex, after which the work was published, is doubtless somewhat defective and it begins with a haggadic passage, which, belonging to Ex. viii. 16, is also in the earlier editions of Tanḥuma. The work was called Hashkem after the word in this introductory sentence. In the editions as well as in the codex this first passage,22, included in both Tanḥumas in the pericope Waera, is erroneously combined with a passage to Ex. x. No one, however, quotes Hashkem and We-Hizhir together as two different works. The haggadic portions are those mentioned above, also part i. pp. 4a et seq. pp. 19a et seq. p. 23a, p. 76b, pp. 115a et seq. 121b, p. 128b, part ii. pp. 34b et seq. p. 128b, etc. Several passages quoted by the old authors, but not found in the edition, Zunz, who closely examined the manuscript after which the edition was subsequently printed, comes to the conclusion that We-Hizhir and Hashkem are one and the same work. This view must be unhesitatingly accepted, the differences are not important, and both differences and omissions may be due to variations in the copies or to different revisions. The work, which is quoted as early as the middle of the 11th century as an authority, is assigned by Zunz to the tenth century. The assumption of the editor expressed even in the title, that Ḥefeẓ Alluf is the author of the work, the quotations from Hashkem by the old authors have been collected by Grünhut. This article incorporates text from a now in the public domain, Singer, Isidore. New York, Funk & Wagnalls Company

33.
Shir ha-Shirim Zutta
–
541, at Parma, was discovered by S. At the same time the midrash to Canticles only was published by S. Schechter, under the title Agadat Shir ha-Shirim, Shir ha-Shirim Zuṭa, or Agadat Shir ha-Shirim, does not at all resemble Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah, or Midrash Ḥazita. Although the two collections contain a few parallels, the Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah does not contain those numerous haggadot which especially distinguish the second collection. In this latter they occur in the first verse of the first chapter, in the verse of the same chapter, in the fifth verse of the same chapter. The Messianic haggadot may be derived from the Pirḳe Rabbi Eliezer, sheṭah, is in support of this supposition. Other passages are found in the Babylonian Talmud, the Pesiḳtot, the Midrash Rabbot, the Mekilta, Agadat Shir ha-Shirim is mainly quoted by Simeon Ḳara, in his Yalḳuṭ Shimoni, and by Machir b. Abba Mari, in his Yalḳuṭ ha-Makiri, the former used this midrash as a basis for his Yalḳuṭ on Canticles, but he quotes it also in his Yalḳuṭ on the other Biblical books. The name Pesiḳta Rabbati has been applied, in the Yalḳuṭ, to the Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah, while this midrash is always referred to as Midrash Shir ha-Shirim. Simeon Ḳara may have applied this name to the Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah because the two works were bound together, on the hand, the occurrence of the name may be due to an error of the copyist. This midrash is quoted in the Yalḳuṭ, as has been said above and it was frequently used also by Machir b. Abba Mari, who quotes it nineteen times under the title of Haggadat Shir ha-Shirim, in his Yalḳuṭ ha-Makiri and it is quoted also by other ancient authorities. Barzilai, in his commentary on the Sefer Yeẓirah, refers to it as Agadta Shir ha-Shirim and it may be added that passages of this midrash are found in Eleazar b. Tobiahs Leḳaḥ Ṭob and Isaac ibn Sahulahs Mashal ha-Ḳadmoni, although these do not mention the name of this midrash, S. Schechter supposes that they probably used ancient homiletic commentaries, among others the Agadat Shir ha-Shirim. Nor is the passage quoted from the Midrash Shir ha-Shirim by Menahem Zioni found in this midrash, Schechter endeavors to prove that the payyeṭan Solomon b. Judah ha-Babli, of the century, had this midrash before him. Jellinek, and especially to the Pereḳ R. Yoshiyahu, and holds that a still earlier might be ascribed to this midrash, namely. But considering that the Pirḳe Rabbi Eliezer, which was composed about the middle of the century, is one of the sources of the Agadat Shir ha-Shirim. S. Buber, in the introduction to his edition of the Midrash Zuṭa, S. Schechter, Aggadat Shir ha-Shirim and this article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain, Singer, Isidore, et al. eds

34.
Sefer haYashar (midrash)
–
The Sefer haYashar is a Hebrew midrash also known as the Toledot Adam and Dibre ha-Yamim be-Aruk. The Hebrew title may be translated Sefer haYashar - Book of the Correct Record -, the book is named after the Book of Jasher mentioned in Joshua and 2 Samuel. It should not be confused with the very different Book of Jasher printed by Jacob Ilive in 1751, the printer Yosèf ben Samuel claimed the work was copied by a scribe named Jacob the son of Atyah, from an ancient manuscript whose letters could hardly be made out. This work is not to be confused with an ethical text by the same name. Scholars have proposed various dates between the 9th century and 16th century, the Venice 1625 text was heavily criticised as a forgery by Leon Modena, as part of his criticisms of the Zohar as a forgery, and of Kabbalah in general. Modena was a member of the Venetian rabbinate that supervised the Hebrew press in Venice, the officer Sidrus reportedly took the scholar and all the books safely back to his estates in Seville, Spain. The 1625 edition then claims that at some point in the history of Islamic Spain. The 1625 edition further claims that scholars preserved the book until its printings in Naples in 1552, apart from the preface to the 1625 work, there is no evidence to support any of this story. The work was used extensively, but not especially more than other sources. The Arabic connections suggest that if the preface to the 1625 version is an exaggeration, the book covers biblical history from the creation of Adam and Eve until a summary of the initial Israelite conquest of Canaan in the beginning of the book of Judges. The text of this chapter follows the beginning of Josippon. Most of its accounts are found in nearly the same form in other medieval compilations, or in the Talmud. For example, it includes the tale that Lamech and his son Jabal accidentally killed Cain. There are 5 discrepancies, when comparing it with chapter 5 of Genesis, in chapter 5 alone. The first is in verse 1, And it was in the year of the life of Noah that Enoch the son of Seth died, Enoch was Jareds son, it was Enosh. Other than the confusion between Enosh and Enoch, the date is correct and it was the 595th year of Noahs life that Lamech died. The fourth is in verse 20, And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy years, lamechs age at death was 777. The fifth is in verse 36, And it was at that time Methuselah the son of Enoch died, nine hundred and sixty years old was he, Methuselah was 969 at his death